






^0 





\ 










^oV^ 



.^" . 





.f 


















^' % / ^'j^id^ % ^"^ ^^^ 







^^ 














PHILANTHROPY IN THE HISTORY 
OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION 



By 
JESSE BRUNDAGE SEARS 

n 

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT 
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1922 



/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 






Gift 



CONTENTS. 

> 

Page. 

5 Introduction v 

Cj Chapter I. — Development of a theory of philanthropy 1 

The early conception of philanthropy 1 

Place of educational foundation in Turgot's social theory 1 

Place of educational foundations in Adam Smith's free-trade economy- 3 

William von Humbolt's theory 4 

Chalraer's modification of the earlier theories 5 

Mill's opposition to the theories of Turgot and Smith 5 

Mr. Lowe's return to free-trade principles 7 

Hobhouse on " the dead hand " in education 7 

Other English theories 8 

Summary and conclusion 8 

Chapter II. — The colonial period 10 

Influences affecting the beginning of American higher education 10 

Finances of the early colleges 16 

Analysis of the gifts to four of the colonial colleges 19 

The function of philanthropy in the colleges 22 

Function of the State in higher education 25 

Conditional and unconditional gifts 27 

Summary and conclusions 31 

Chapter III. — The early national period, 1776-1865 33 

The period characterized 33 

The number of colleges and how started 33 

The beginnings 35 

How the work was accomplished 86 

Philanthropy in the older colleges 37 

Philanthropy in the colleges founded later 40 

Theological education in this period 43 

Other lines of professional training 44 

Education of women 44 

Philanthropy and the manual-labor colleges 45 

Philanthropy through education societies 47 

Summary and conclusions 51 

Chapter IV.— The late national period, 1865 to 1918 53 

The period characterized 53 

Growth in number of colleges ^ 53 

General survey of educational philanthropy in this period 55 

Status of education among all the objects of philanthropy ^ 59 

Philanthropy in the colleges of this period 67 

Philanthropy through religious education societies 73 

Summary and conclusions 78 

Chapter V. — Great educational foundations 81 

A new philanthropic enterprise 81 

The stated purposes of these foundations 82 

The operations of these foundations 89 

Summary 10] 

III 



ly ' CONTENTS. 

Page. 

Chapter VI. — Summary and conclusions 103 

Purpose and plan of the study 103 

The the ry of endowments — 103 

Early experiences in America 104 

The early national period 106 

The late national period lO^ 

Developments bearing upon a theory of endowments 109 

Index ^^'^ 



INTRODUCTION. 



This study represents an attempt to trace the influence of philanthropy in 
the development of higher education in America. Incident to this has been 
the further question of what has been evolved by vi^ay of a theory of educa- 
tional endowments, or, broader still, of educational philanthropy. The im- 
portance of such a study is obvious when we consider the part philanthropy 
has played in the development of the American college and university. Its 
importance is equally clear, too, when we view the recent enormous increase 
in educational philanthropy, and the wide variety of educational enterprises 
to which philanthropy is giving rise. If we are to avoid the waste that must in- 
evitably come from bad management of gifts, from wrong dispositions of 
money over which the future can exercise no control, we must study our 
already extensive experience and develop a set of guiding principles or a 
fundamental theory of educational philanthropy. 

It was evident from the outset that any reasonably brief treatment of a 
subject occupying so large a place in the history of American higher education 
would present certain difficulties, not only in the selection of facts, but also 
in the interpretation of the comparatively small amount of first-hand data 
that could be satisfactorily treated in brief space. 

It has been the writer's purpose carefully to scrutinize the materials pre- 
sented to see that they were fully representative of one or another important 
type of philanthropy affecting our higher education ; to see that no type of 
effort was without representation; to draw only such conclusions as the 
facts clearly warranted ; and, finally, to present the data in such form as to 
make them fully available for future use in more intensive studies, if occasion 
for such should arise. If in these respects the effort has been successful, then it 
is believed to offer, in broad outline, the history of philanthropy in the de- 
velopment of American higher institutions of learning. As such it is presented, 
with the hope that it may add somewhat to the general perspective we now 
possess for the various features of our institutions for higher training, and 
to the development of a sound theory of educational philanthropy, as well as 
witli a full consciousness that there is very much yet to be done before we 
shall have adequate details concerning any one of the many phases of this 
problem. 

At the beginning of our experience in this field Europe had formulated no 
theory of educational endowment or of educational philanthropy, but sub- 
sequently the subject received treatment in the writings of their social and 
pelitical philosophers, and also to no less extent by practical statesmen en- 
gaged in correcting the evils of past mistakes in practice. These ideas have 
been traced briefly in an Introductory chapter. Following this, it has been 
my purpose to describe our own practice from the begtnning to the present 
time, and to make such generalizations as the facts seemed to warrant. Two 
types of data have been studied: First, the foundation documents, such as 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

charters, articles of incorporation, constitutions, by-laws, deeds of trust, wills, 
and conditions controlling gifts on tlie one hand; and, second, the statistics 
of gifts on the other. To add to the value of bare description, the comparative 
method has been utilized wherever it was possible. 

The writer is indebted to numerous librarians and education boards for 
special courtesies, and especially to Dr. Paul Monroe, not only for having sug- 
gested this problem, but also for Imiwrtant suggestions concerning the method 
of its treatment. 

The original study of which this bulletin is a condensation is on file at 
Teachers College, Columbia University, where it was presented in April, 1919, 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. 

J. B. Seaks. 

Stanford University, Calif., 
April 20, 1919. 



PHILANTHROPY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN 
HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Chapter I. 

DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF 
PHILANTHROPY. 



THE EARLY CONCEPTION OF PHILANTHROPY. 

So long as charity remained intimately associated with the church it is not 
strange that the work it was doing should never have been called in question. 
The term " charity " meant Christian virtue, and its economic significance 
was wholly overlooked. In praising a man's good intentions it was not thought 
important that society should hold him responsible for having wisdom in ex- 
pressing them. 

PLACE OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS IN TURGOT's SOCIAL THEORY. 

It is left, therefore, to the economist to look critically into the problem so 
long ignored by superstition, religion, and sentimentalism. It is interesting 
to note that it was in an age when all social life was being carefully scruti- 
nized that Turgot published his unsigned article " Foundations," in the 
Encyclopedia, in 1757. It is at this point that a real halt is called, and phi- 
lanthropy becomes a problem for the intellect. 

All peoples and ages have regarded active benevolence as an important 
virtue, and to such acts the severest economist offers no protest. But the bald 
unwisdom evident in the presumption that man is competent to judge what is 
good for all the future is what drew from Turgot this classic criticism, which 
John Morley says is " the most masterly discussion we possess of the advan- 
tages and disadvantages of endowments." ^ 

The native instinct which underlies man's desire to relieve his brother in 
distress makes no distinction between present and future good; nor does it 
discover that good is a relative term. Consequently, it is not strange that 
much evil is done where only good is intended. But add to this native impulse 
the best wisdom of our day and yet we can not say what will be the need of 
another generation; and if we could, and were large-hearted enough to endow 
that need, we would not be able to guarantee that our successors, in whose 

1 John Morley : Dideiot and the Encyclopaedists, p. 191, 



2 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

hands we place the right, would execute with the same enthusiasm with which 
we have founded. Business, but not enthusiasm, may be handed down. 

It is because the history of European endowments was written so plainly 
in these terms across the faces of the church, the hospital, and the school, 
that Turgot was lead to inquire into the general utility of foundations, with a 
view to demonstrating their impropriety. He does not approach the subject 
in a purely abstract way, though he had a well-defined social theory which 
later received a clear statement in his " Reflexions sur la Formation et la 
Distribution des Richesses," since for every principle set forth he appeals to 
history for its .iustification. 

Turgot sees so little good accomplished by endowments that he is led to 
say : " Un fondateur est un homme qui veut eterniser I'eifet de ses volonte." " 
His motive may be good, but results prove his lack of wisdom. After citing 
cases which are convincing, he concludes : " Je ne craindrai point de dire que, 
si Ton comparait les advantages et les inconvenients de toutes les fondations 
qui existent aujourd'hui en Europe, il n'y en aurait peut-etre pas une qui 
soutint I'examen d' une politique §clair§." ' Granting that at its ponception the 
object is a real utility, there is yet the impossibility of its future execution 
to be reckoned with, because the enthusiasm of the founder caijnot be trans- 
mitted. If even this, however, were overcome, it would still ^ot be long till 
time would sweep away the utility, for society has not always the same needs. 

Thus Turgot pointed out the difficulties and the consequent evils inherently 
connected with the establishment of perpetuities. If we suggest the idea of a 
periodical revision, which is done by later thinkers, Turgot quickly points to 
history and shows how long periods usually elapse after a foundation has 
become useless before its uselessness is detected ; that those closely acquainted 
with such a charity are so accustomed to its workuig as not to be struck by 
its defects and that those not acquainted have little chance of obseiwing its 
weakness. Then there is the difficulty of determining the proper character 
and extent of the modifications, to say nothing of enforcing its adoption against 
the opposition of the vested interests. 

The author distinguishes two kinds of social needs which are intended to be 
fulfilled by foundations : One, " appartiennent 3, la societe entiere, et ne seront 
que le resultant des interets de chacune de ses parties: tels sont les besoins 
generaux de 1' humanite, la nourriture pour tons les hommes, les bonnes moeurs 
et r §ducation des enfants, pour toutes les families ; et cet intergt est plus 
ou moins pressant pour les differents besoins ; car un homme sent plus vivement 
le besoin de la nourriture que 1' interet qu'il a de donner k ses enfants une 
bonne education." * This need, he says, can not be fulfilled by a foundation or 
any sort of gratuitous means, for the general good must result from the efforts 
of each individual in behalf of his own interests. It is the business of the 
state to destroy obstacles which impede man in his industry or in the enjoy- 
ment of its fruits. Similarly, he insists that every family owes to its chil- 
dreh an education, and that only through these individual efforts can the 
general perfection of education arise. If interest in education is lacking, he 
would arouse it by means of a system of prizes given on merit. 

The second class of public needs he would propose to meet by foundations 
he has classed as accidental, limited in place and time, having less to do with 
a general system of administration, and that may demand particular relief, such, 
for instance, as the support of some old men, the hardship of a scarcity, or an 

2 Turgot-Oeuvres, Vol. I, p. 300. 
"Ibid., p. 301. 
Mtid., p. 305. 



DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHEOPY. 3 

epidemic, etc. For the amelioration of such needs he would employ the public 
revenues of the community, some contribution of all its members, and volun- 
tary subscriptions from generous citizens. This scheme he declares to be not 
only efficient but impossible of abuse, for the moment funds are diverted from 
their proper use their source will at once dry up. This puts no money into 
luxury or useless buildings, it would withdraw no funds from general circu- 
lation, and place no land in idle hands. He points to the success of such asso- 
ciations in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and thus supports his theory with 
reference to present practice. 

By these lines of thought he justifies the proposition that government has 
a right to dispose of old foundations. " L'utilit6 publique est la loi suprgm," * 
he says, and adds that a superstitious regard for the intention of the founder 
ought not to nullify it. 

These are the principles, not deduced from an imaginary law of nature alone, 
but carefully supported and justified at each point by the clear facts of history. 
All foundations are condemned by Turgot as worse than useless and his laissez 
faire doctrine would forbid the establishment of others. This was a bold 
doctrine to preach in the middle of the eighteenth century, but its impress was 
felt throughout Europe, and it is only a few decades till another member of the 
same school of economists lends support to these views. 

PLACE OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS IN ADAM SMITH'S FEEE-TKADE ECONOMY. 

Adam Smith's " Wealth of Nations," first published in 177G, tends to substan- 
tiate all Turgot had taught and to show that it applies particularly to educa- 
tional endowments. In discussing the natural inequalities of labor and stock, 
he insists that where there is " perfect liberty " all advantages and disad- 
vantages tend to equality." And in the following chapter on political inequali- 
ties of wages and profit he points out three ways in which political interference 
with " perfect liberty " has produced great and important inequalities. " First, 
by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than 
would otherwise be disposed to enter into them ; secondly, by increasing it in 
others beyond what it naturally would be ; and thirdly, by obstructing the free 
circulation of labor and stock, both from employment to employment and from 
ph^ce to place." ' 

In support of the second he shows how public money, " and sometimes the 
piety of private founders," * have drawn many people into the profession of the 
clergy, thereby increasing competition to the point of making the salaries very 
low. Exactly the same thing, he says, has happened to men of letters and to 
teachers, and when contrasted with the time of Isocrates, " before any charities 
of this kind had been established for the education of indigent people to the 
learned professions," " the ill effect upon the teacher's income is evident enough. 

There is yet another phase of the subject which is touched upon in Smith's 
discussion of the expense of the institutions for the education of the youth. 
Referring to the many endowed schools throughout Europe, he asks : 

Have those public endowments contributed in general to promote the end of 
their institution? Have they contributed to encourage the diligence and to 
improve the abilities of the teachers? Have they directed the course of educa- 
tion toward objects more useful, both to the individual and to the public, than 
those to which it would naturally have gone of its own accord? '" 

E Turgot-Oeuvres, Vol. I, p. .308. 

« Smith, Adam : Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. X, p. 101, 

'Ibid., p. 121. 

« Ibid., p. 131. 

•Ibid., p. 134. 

i» Ibid., p. 249. 



4 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

He then states as a universal principle that the exertion of most people in a 
profession is proportional to the necessity they are under of making that ex- 
ertion. He believes that the endowments of schools have diminished the neces- 
sity of application in the teachers, and shows how the older and richer colleges 
have clung longest to a useless and worn-out curriculum, while the poorer 
universities, dependent upon their popularity for much of their income, intro- 
duced the modern subjects much earlier." He says : 

Were there no public institutions for education, no systems, no sciences 
would be taught for which there was not some demand, or which the circum- 
stances of the times did not render it either necessary or convenient, or at least 
fashionable, to learn." 

This extreme application of the principle of free trade is modified only 
cslightly by Smith to meet the inequality of opportunity brought about in a 
complex society where division of labor has been carried to great length. While 
he states that in most cases the state of society places the greater number of 
individuals in such situations as form in them almost all the abilities and 
virtues which that state requires, yet there are cases in which this is not 
true. 

The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of 
which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, 
has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding 
out expedients for removing diflSculties which never occur. He naturally loses, 
therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and igno- 
rant as it is possible for a human creature to become." 

Thus Smith would have the state intervene in behalf of the great labor popu- 
lation, whose intellectual tendency must inevitably be in this direction. 

This brief presentation of Smith's attitude toward perpetuities shows how 
his principles of social organization exclude them ; and, like Turgot's, his 
theory is constructed in the presence of existing facts. The sum of the con- 
tribution is little more than a specific application of Turgot's arguments to 
educational foundations. 

If the social theory undei'lying the objections to endowments made by these 
two men is sound, surely the facts they have cited would warrant their con- 
clusion that endowments are evil because they interfere with the real laws 
of human progress. Certainly the evidence they cite makes clear the difficul- 
ties attending their establishment. 

Is a laissez faire policy a sound basis for social organization, and can these 
evil practices be overcome? These are problems for their successors. 

wiizLiAM VON Humboldt's theory. 

William von Humboldt wrote, in 1791 : " Ueberhaupt soil die Erziehung nur, 
ohne Riiksicht auf bestimmte, den Menschen zu ertheilende biirgerliche Formen, 
Menschen bilden ; so bedarf es des Staats nicht." " Thus he not only accepts 
the system of free exchange laid down by Turgot and Smith, but excludes the 
possible modification which Turgot implies under the head of " accidental " 
social needs, and which Smith makes to correct the slight disadvantage to 
which some are placed by the effects of the extreme division of labor. " Unter 
freren Menschen gewunen alle Gewerbe bessren Fortgang; bliihen alle Kiinste 
schoner auf; erweitem sich alle Wissenschaften," says William von Humboldt, 

"This argument is quite obviously beside the mark in America. 
>2 Smith, Adam : Wealth of Nations, Bk. V, Ch. I, p. 266. 
"Ibid., p. 267. 
" Wllhelm von Humboldt, Werke, Vol. VII, p. 57. 



DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY. 5 

and again, " Bei freuen Menschen entsteht Naclieiferung, und es bilden sich 
bessere Erzieher wo ihr Schiksal von dem Erfolg ihrer Arbeiten, als wo es 
von der Beforderung abhangt, die sie vom Staate zu erwarten haben." 

Here we find a leading German statesman insisting upon these social and 
economic principles in matters of education. Surely he did not foresee the 
future development of schools in Germany, where the State has been responsible 
for practically all educational work. 

While our purpose here is not to write, or even to sketch, the history of 
economic theory, yet it is interesting to note that the objections soon to be 
raised against a wholesale condemnation of educational endowments are focused 
upon the economic doctrine of the physiocrats, and fit in as early steps in the 
historical decline of the laissez faire economy. 

Chalmers's modification of the earlier theories. 

Dr. Thomas Chalmers, an early nineteenth century economist, interested in 
the practical problem of handling the poor, accepts the idea of free exchange 
to the extent of condemning the state endowment of pauperism but urges that 
an endowment for the relief of indigence is not to be compared with one whose 
object is the support of literary or Christian instruction. For education, 
though it is a real want, is not a felt want. He says : 

The two cases, so far from being at all alike in principles, stand in direct and 
diametric opposition to each other. We desiderate the latter endowment 
because of the languor of the intellectual or spiritual appetency ; in so much 
that men, left to themselves, seldom or never originate a movement toward 
learning. We deprecate the former endowment because, in the strength of 
the physical appetency, we have the surest guarantee that men will do their 
uttermost for good ; and a public charity having this for its object by lessening 
the industry and forethought that would have been otherwise put forth in the 
cause, both adds to the wants and detracts from the real work and virtue of 
the species. And, besides, there is no such strength of compassion for the 
sufferings of the moral or spiritual that there is for the physical destitution. 
An endowment for education may be necessary to supplement the one, while 
an endowment for charity may do the greatest moral and economic mischief 
by superseding the other. Relatives and neighbors could bear to see a man 
ignorant or even vicious. They could not bear to see him starve.'" 

Thus an important modification of the above social theory is proposed. 
Whether the practical philanthropist has since shown such discrimination or 
not, the principle involved in the criticism was important. Shall the provision 
for education be dependent upon the mere demand of the market, or shall this 
important but " unfelt " need be stimulated by some kind of endowment? 

mill's OPPOSITION TO THE THEORIES OF TURCOT AND SMITH. 

In February, 1833, John Stuart Mill published an article in the Jurist" in 
which he declared ignorance and want of culture to be the sources of all social 
evil, and adds that they can not be met by political checks." He says : 

There is also an unfortunate peculiarity attending these evils. Of all 
calamities, they are those of which the persons suffering from them are apt 
to be least aware. Of their bodily wants and ailments, mankind are generally 
conscious ; but the wants of the mind, the want of being wiser and better, is, 
in the far greater number of cases, unfelt ; some of its disastrous consequences 
are felt, but are ascribed to any imaginable cause except the true one." 

15 Quoted by Thos. Mackay in " The State and Charity," p. 36. 

»* Later published in " Dissertations and Discussions," Vol. I, pp. 28-68. 

1' Mill, J. S. : " Dissertations and Discussions," Vol. I, p. 54. 

IS Ibid., pp. 54, 55. 



6 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

In answer to the question as to what m'en have depended upon and must 
depend upon for the removal of their ignorance and defects of culture, he says, 
" mainly on the unremitting exertions of the more instructed and cultivated," 
which, he adds, is a wide field of usefulness open for foundations. He com- 
bats Smith's argument that such foundations are but premiums on idleness 
and insufficiency merely by saying that such is the case only when it is nobody's 
business to see that the trust is duly executed. 

To show further how the idea of endowments fits into Mill's general social 
philosophy, note what he says in his essay " On Liberty," written in 1858 : 

With regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive 
injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any 
specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable 
individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford 
to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom." 

Individual freedom is as carefully guarded as by Turgot or Smith, but the 
implication that it is best preserved by a complete system of free exchange is 
carefully avoided. 

Mill does not believe that in a government where majority rule predominates 
the ideas of the minority should be lost. In his essay on " Endowments," pub- 
lished in the Fortnightly Review, April 1, 1869, he says : 

There is good reason against allowing them to do this (make bequests) in 
favor of an unborn individual whom they can not know, or a public purpose 
beyond the probable limits of human foresight. But within those limits, the 
more scope that is given to varieties of human individuality the better. 

And, 

Since trial alone can decide whether any particular experiment is successful, 
latitude should be given for carrying on the experiment until the trial is com- 
plete.'" 

His contention is, then, not only that foundations should be permitted, but 
that over a reasonable period of time the exact wishes of the founder should 
be strictly adhered to. His defense, later in the essay, of a foundation just 
then being severely criticized by the press shows the great social import which 
he attaches to the preservation of an unusual idea of an unusual person. After 
a complete trial of the experiment has been effected, the obligation of society 
to the founder has been discharged, and the value of the gift to society can be 
indicated. 

The explanation of this relationship is the first object of the essay of 1833, 
the second being a discussion of the spirit in which and the reservations with 
which the legislature should proceed to accept and modify the original plan 
and object of the foundation. In brief, he regards the endowment as public 
property after about fifty years from the date of its establishment, and in every 
sense subject to the will of society, even to changing the purpose of the gift, 
if necessary, to meet the changes of succeeding ages. 

Mill's economic justification of man's right to establish endowments is quite 
as interesting as his social justification. He says that it is due not to the 
children but to the parents that they should have the power of bestowing their 
wealth according to their own preference and judgment, for — 

Bequest is one of the attributes of property ; the ownership of a thing can 
not be looked upon as complete without the power of bestowing it, at death or 

^» Mill, J. S. : " On Liberty," published in the Harvard Classics, p. 289. 

2» Mill, J. S. : " Endowments," Fort. Rev., vol. 5, p. 380. See also essay on " The 
Right and Wrong of State Interference with Corporate and Church Property," in " Disser- 
tations and Discussions," p. 32, 



DEVELOPMENT OF A THEOKY OF PHILAlSTTHROPt'. 7 

during life, at the owner's pleasure ; and all the reasons which recommend that 
private property should exist recommend pro tanto extension of it." 

This is no small modification of the theories of Turgot and Smith, and is a 
definite stand taken by Mill in respect not only to a philosophical but to an 
important practical issue then before the English public. And only a few 
years before his death he wrote in his autobiography " that the position he 
had taken in 1833 was as clear as he could now make it. Indeed, this very 
principle of Mill's was in 1853 embodied in the legislative enactment carried 
through by Lord Brougham and others. 

MR. Lowe's return to free trade principles. 

Mill's position, however, was too conservative, and too considerate of the 
numerous abuses of endowments then so well known to everyone, and drew 
forth sharp criticisms.^ In condemning the report of the commissioners ap- 
pointed to inquire into middle-class education, whose procedure had been 
generally in line with the ideas of Mill and Chalmers, Mr. Lowe'* (later Lord 
Sherbrooke) calls for a return to the ordinary rules of political economy. He 
would class teaching as a trade, and keep it in the quickening atmosphere of 
free exchange. This return to the notion that failure of endowments is due 
not to founder worship, as Mill would say, but to the principle of endowment, 
shows the influence of the free-trade economy. 

In practice at this time the cry is not that all foundations be used to pay 
the national debt, and so place education where Mr. Lowe would ask, but 
rather how can the terrible waste of funds be checked, or, what system of con- 
trol can the State legitimately exercise? We have Mill's suggestion that 
society will progress most rapidly vi^hen it gives wide range to social and educa- 
tional experimentation, and that this is done best, not by the State through 
a commission, which would tend to force all endowments into a uniform mold, 
but by legal enforcement of the exact conditions of the foundation till the 
merits of the experiment become evident. 

HOBHOUSE ON " THE DEAD HAND " IN EDUCATION. 

During the period 1868 to 1879 Sir Arthur Hobhouse delivered a series of 
addresses, afterwards published as " The Dead Hand," ^^ in which he accepts, 
with Mill, both the principle of endowed education and the idea that every 
such bequest should be made to serve the present. The question of method, 
however, is a point on which he takes issue with Mill. He can not see that the 
term " property " implies power of posthumous disposition. Tried by history, 
he says, " the further back we trace any system of laws, the smaller we find 
the power of posthumous disposition to be." "^ Furthermore, he insists that 
250 years of English experience does not reveal one useful educational experi- 
ment resulting from such foundations as Mr. Mill regards important in the 
development of new ideas and lines of social and educational practice." 

21 Mill, J. S. : " Political Economy," Vol. I, p. 287. 

22 Autobiography, p. 182. 

2» See Report of Schools Inquiry Commission of 1868. 

2* See his Middle Class Education, Endowment or " Free Trade." 

25 London, 1880. 

2« Hobhouse, Sir A. : " The Dead Hand," p. 14. 

2^ Ibid., p. 94. 



8 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

This attitude is further emphasized by Sir Joshua Fitcli, whose practical 
contact with English educational endowments gives weight to his words when 
he says : 

One uniform purpose is manifest in the testaments, the deeds of gift and the 
early statutes by which the character of these schools was intended to be 
shaped. It is to encourage the pursuit of a liberal education founded on the 
ancient languages.'" 

Further, in his analysis of the motives which have prompted bequests to public 
uses, Hobhouse does not find justification for Mill's position. In the list of 
motives which he finds underlying the foundations in England are: Love 
of power and certain cognate passions, ostentatiousness, vanity, superstition, 
patriotism to a slight extent, and spite.'^ While this list might not fit individual 
cases, he insists that it is true for the mass. 

Mill thinks that the public does not know its own needs fully, because it is 
only the ma.iority speaking. Hobhouse regards the public as an individual 
competent to judge its needs and naturally endowed with the right to express 
them ; hence he would lay down two principles upon which all foundations must 
be established : First, " If the public is chosen as legatee, the legacy shall be, 
as it ought to be, an unconditional one" ; '" and, second, " there shall always be a 
living and reasonable owner of property, to manage it according to the wants 
of mankind." ^^ The excuse for such a title to his book here becomes evident. 
He can not see that the living have need for the continual advice and control of 
the dead. 

OTHER ENGLISH THEORIES. 

As interest in education grew in England, respect for perpetual trusts de- 
creased. The act of 1853 above referred to, giving a commission power only to 
inquire into and report the condition of charitable foundations, was later revised 
giving the commission greater power. And finally, in 1869, one year after the 
report of the School Inquiry Commission, we have the " Endowed schools act," "" 
giving the commissioners power to " render any educational endowment most 
conducive to the advancement of the education of boys and girls," '^ etc. This 
act was somewhat strengthened by revision in 1873 and again in 1874.'* 

During the last half of the nineteenth century there was wide discussion of 
the practical problem in England, but little of theoretical value was added. Sir 
Joshua Fiteh, in an address at Pennsylvania University,'^' lays down two prin- 
ciples : First, an endowment's only right to exist is its benefit to the community ; 
and, second, the State is the supreme trustee of all endowments. Thomas Hare, 
in 1869,'^ regards all property as either public or private. An endowment, being 
public property, is subject to the public will. Before the Social Science Asso- 
ciation,^ he accepts Mill's notion of endowments as valuable social and educa- 
tional experiments, and insists only upon the State's right of supervision. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 

Many other writers have added bits of practical wisdom, but the results of 
more than a hundred years of theorizing may be briefiy summed up as follows : 

28 Fitch, Joshua : " Educational Aims and Methods," p. 191. 

29 Hobhouse, Sir A. : " The Dead Hand," p. 15 ff. 

'" Fitch, Joshua : " Educational Alms and Methods," p. 120. 

"Ibid., p. 121. 

«2 See 32 and 33 Vict., C. 56. 

33 Title: "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869" (32 and 33 Vict., C. 56). 

^ 36 and 87 Vict., C. 87, and 37 and 38 Vict., C. 87. 

88 Published in " Educational Aims and Methods." 

so Fortnightly Rev., 5, 284-297. 

« Trans. Soc. Sc. Assoc, 1869, p. 132. 



DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY. 9 

There is perhaps no universally acceptable theory of educational eiidowmejnfcs 
yet worked out ; the early free-trade economy has been tempered by substantially 
removing education from its scope ; the experimental value of the endowed school 
is accepted on the ground that social progress is dependent quite as much upon 
the ideas and interests of the minority as upon those of the majority, and that 
with wide variation in educational endeavor, opportunity for wise selection is 
increased ; that endowments are public property, since they are given to public 
service, and should therefore be subject to such public supervision as will pre- 
vent their being wasted or becoming socially obnoxious. 

Recalling Turgot's position, we can see that his statement of the meaning and 
function of foundations is yet a fairly acceptable presentation of the philo- 
sophical problem. 



Chapter II. 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 



INFLUENCES AFFECTING THE BEGINNING OF AMERICAN HIGHER 

EDUCATION. 

1. THE PROBLEM. 

In early colonial America there was little theorizing as to who should 
build colleges or as to how such schools should be financed. From the 
beginning higher education was a serious interest of the people, and one 
which early found practical expression. What the scholars and statesmen 
thought of endowments, therefore, we can infer only from what they actually 
did. They faced college building as a practical problem, and whatever we 
have since developed by way of a theory of endowed education in America 
we have developed very largely out of our long and varied experience. 

In this and succeeding chapters, therefore, it is the purpose to assemble 
facts which will adequately describe that experience, to the end that the 
character and extent of the influence which philanthropy has had in the 
development of higher education in America may be seen. Finally, from an 
interpretation of these facts it should then be possible to state whatever 
theory of endowments there has been evolved in this country. 

When in the early history of Harvard College we find among its donors 
the general court, numerous towns and churches, as well as individuals, we 
realize that it is necessary to define the term "philanthropy." In this study 
the term is used to include all gifts except those from State. Again, if, as 
we are told, philanthropy means an expression of love for mankind, the 
names of Eleazer Wheelock, Theodorus J. Frelinghuysen, Morgan Edward, 
James Blair, and other notable ministers of the gospel would loom large in 
the description. However important the work of such men may have been, 
it would be impossible satisfactorily to show its results in a study which 
is designed to be quite largely quantitative. Accordingly, this study will be 
concerned with only those facts and forces which play some measurable part 
in shaping our institutions of higher learning. 

2. COLLEGE CHABTEES ANALYZED. 

The forces which entered into the founding of our first colleges were many 
and complex. Certain of these stood out clearly and for many years played 
a large part in directing the growth of higher learning. Everywhere and 
particularly in the foundation documents of the colonial colleges we are 
able to see these forces at work, giving form to these infant institutions. In 
Table 1 are shown such data, taken from the charters of the nine colonial 
colleges. 

10 



THE COLOIflAL, PERIOD. 11 

ENGJ.ISH INFIXTENCES. 

English influences are suggested by tlie tliree names, William and Mary, 
King's, and Queen's. To these Dartmouth must be added, having taken its 
name in honor of its chief benefactor. Lord Dartmouth, of England, and, for 
a similar reason, Yale. Further, important subscriptions were collected in 
England: £10,000 for Dartmouth; $4,500 for Brown; £2,500 for William and 
Mary in addition to the gift of the English Government of £2,000 and 20,000 
acres of land ; King's and Pennsylvania together, some £10,000 ; ^ and over 
£2,000 for Princeton.* In all cases these subscriptions furnished relatively 
large sums for the colleges, and were among the early, and in case of William 
and Mary, Dartmouth and Brown, the founding gifts. 

AIM OF THE COLLEGES GIFTS EXPECTED. 

Harvard University. — " Through the good hand of God " men " are moved and 
stirred up to give * * * for the advancement of all good literature, arts, 
and sciences." ' 

" Many well-devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up 
to give and bestow sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advance- 
ment of all good literature, arts, and sciences in Harvard College." 

College of William and Mary. — " That the Church of Virginia may be fur- 
nished with a seminary of ministers of the Gospel, and that the youth may be 
piously educated in good letters and manners and that the Christian faith 
may be propagated amongst the western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God ; 
to make a place of universal study, or perpetual college of divinity, philosophy, 
languages, and other good arts and sciences. 

Tale University. — To found a school " Wherein Youth may be instructed in 
the Arts and Sciences, who through the blessings of Almighty God may be fitted 
for Public employment both in Church and Civil State." 

" Several * * * ^len have expressed by Petition their earnest desires 
that full Liberty and Privilege be granted unto certain Undertakers for the 
founding, suitably endowing and ordering a Collegiate School," etc., also note 
further the power given to the trustees of the college. 

Princeton University. — " For the instruction of youth in the learned languages 
and in the liberal arts and sciences." All religious sects to have equal educa- 
tional opportunity.'' 

Columbia University. — " For Instruction and Education of Youth in the 
Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences." * * * "to lead 
them from the Study of Nature, to the Knowledge of themselves, and of the 
God of Nature, and their Duty to Him." 

University of Pennsylvania. — The academy out of which the College grew 
was " for instructing youth for reward, as poor children on charity " " we, 
being desirous to encourage such pious, useful, and charitable designs." Col- 
lege is for instruction "in any kind of literature, arts, and sciences." 

1 Pennsylvania University Bulletin, Vol. Ill, p. 4, January, 1899, contains a copy of the 
" Fiat " for the Royal Brief, issued by King George III, granting the right to the two 
■' Seminaries " to take the subscription. 

2 See Maclean : History of the College of New Jersey, Vol. I, 147 ff., for a discussion of 
this undertaking ; also copies of some documents connected with it. The full amount of 
the subscription is not known. 

* Charter was not granted till 1 650. " New England's First Fruits " shows clearly the 
religious aim. Also the legislative act of 1642 uses the words piety, morality, and 
learning as expressing the aim of the college. 

* See Princeton Univ. Catalogue, 1912-13, p. 46. The quotation is not from the charter, 
the first charter not being extant, but is from an advertisement in the Pennsylyania 
Gazette of Aug. 1.3, 1746-47. Nearly the same words are used in the charter of 1850 to 
express the aim of the college. 

111512°— 22 2 



12 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



rjt^ O t., -2 '^ M 



05 • 
CS'O CO 

^ ffi.S 









> 2 « 






^^ H 






,_( o luS:;^ y • 
""■So --3-S t- o^ 



C ^2 2 . C c 



SS 



^ 09 tuox: 



M 












.2 M 

Ph 



"^^ 









,SS.2 



*r* (^ ^ »U m -tj> '^ 



9^bcB 



K l=|!^ 






o » I- 

P3 



~_S ® a ° 
g^^e-o o o g S 

PI P3 



El 



o3 



'.-■tfO 



M OCT 03 






CO ] 
O 



PP HO 



■2-S 



;h O., 






M g oj a C g^m 

Oft ^WftS^ 
O 



g 5i 3 

fc ° '' 

O o 



S2£?-2 



CO . R 
Pi®-© 






w t- S 
oj © 5J 

■ho a 

Ph 



"H 05.2'q) 

t^ •?; 03 

St-SPh 2 
S' C .2 ^ jq 
O 03-1^ o a 



.3° 
'0 ^ 



n 


m3U 




sw 









f^ 


m 


'4; tH oT 

g 03 M 


■"■a 
a 


-ss 


fews 




■fflo 










"o 


Ma 




Ascho 
lege"; 
vard 
1638. 


— r* 03 


^8 


i 





EH 



dp a « g 03 jj 

25 "ooo-gg 

*«_J U< ^ TO S CLi 

i^rt 2 8'=' " « 

M . . 73 S <^ c! g S? 
^''oo3caSJi7^rt"o 
5c5><§8Mo«rta 



&^a| 
cH.a.2« 



P 03 fc* 

5 o a> 

ffl 2 c ^ 
o 



_20 



^ao.| 






O Ph 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 



13 





■~ 




o> 
























"^ 


O o ° 








^feo^K 






o a? 03 


Governc 
New J 
in nam 
George I 






Governor 
Provinc 
New H 
' shire. 


> C 5 " ® 




o 2^ 


tn a*^*^ 


Fl 




Progres 
clergy 
congrega 
of Du 


o 


i 









g 3 60 



■2 J, 5 w is 3 

■S S • • z ° ^ . 

^ Cs£ S <>> "^ "^ 

•9 .2 -3 S.sfc: 



14 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

" Several benevolent and charitable persons have generously paid, and by 
subscriptions promised hereafter to pay, * * * for the use of said acad- 
emy, divers sums of money," spent " in maintaining an academy there as well 
for the instruction of poor children on charity," etc." " 

Brown University. — "And whereas a Pubhc School or Seminary, * * * 
to which the Youth may freely resort for Education in the vernacular and 
learned Languages, and in the liberal Arts and Sciences would be for the gen- 
eral Advantage and Honor of the Government." 

" And whereas Daniel Jenckes, Esq. ; * * * ^jth many others appear as 
undertakers in the valuable Design * * * praying that full Liberty and 
Power may be granted unto such of them, * * * to found, endow, 

* * * a College," etc. And, further, "Being willing to encourage 

* * * such an honorable and useful Institution, We, the said Governor," 
etc. • 

Rutgers College. — The college is for " the Education of youth in the learned 
languages, liberal and useful arts and sciences, and especially in divinity." 
Did it try to preserve the Dutch language?' 

Dartmouth College. — " Dartmouth College, for the education and instruction 
of Youth - the Indian Tribes in * * * Learning * * * necessary 

* * * for civilizing and christianizing * * * Pagans * * * in Arts 
and Sciences; * * * also of English Youth." 

" It hath been represented * * * that the Reverend Eleazer Wheelock 

* * * did * * *, at his own expense, * * * set on foot an Indian 
Charity school and for several years through the assistance of well-disposed 
Persons * * *," etc' 

3. BELIGIOUS AND DENOMINATIONAL INFLrUENCES. 

The religious influence is, of course, prominent. The statements showing 
how the movements for establishing the schools were started, those showing 
the source of control, the petitioners for the charters, and the religious affilia- 
tions of the first presidents, as well as the last one, showing the aim of the 
college, all point to religion as the large motivating force in the case of every 
one. 

The beginning of William and Mary, Yale, Princeton, King's, Brown, Queen's, 
and Dartmouth (Harvard should probably be included) lies with groups of 
ministers or religious bodies. In the case of Yale, Princeton, Brown, Queen's, 
and Dartmouth the formal request for a charter was presented by represent- 
atives of religious bodies; while the source of control in the case of Yale, 
King's, and Brown was placed in the hands of religious bodies. In effect the 
same was true of Princeton, Harvard, and Queen's. All the first presidents 
were ministers. 

It is in the charter, however, that the religious motive stands out with 
greatest prominence. The quotations presented are those which seem best to 
reveal the chief aim of the institution. Somewhere in every charter, Penn- 
sylvania a possible exception, there is evidence that the teaching of religion 
was to be a prominent feature of the work of the college. 

'Academy charter, in catalogue, 1912-13, p. 15. This is of course the basis of the 
charter for a college granted two years later. 

• Charter, in catalogue for 1912-13, pp. 29-30. 

' Murray : " Hist, of Educ. in N. J.," p. 288, refers to the charter of 1770 as amend- 
ing a statement which was said to have been included in the first charter, viz, that the 
Dutch language was to be used exclusively in the college. 

* Charter, in Chase's Hist, of Dartmouth College and Hanover, N. H., p. 642. 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 15 

To what extent denominationalism was a factor does not appear fully from 
this table. From other sources we know that the chancellorship of William 
and Mary was by charter granted to the Bishop of London ; that Yale, which 
was built by Congregationalists in a Congregational colony, said in her charter 
that at least the major part of their 10 self-perpetuating trustees must always 
" be ministers of the Gospel inhabiting within this colony." * Princeton's char- 
ter does not call for denominational control, yet, according to the charter of 
1648, there were 12 Presbyterian ministers on the board." It is also true that 
Governor Morris, of New Jersey, refused Princeton's first request for a char- 
ter made, iu his opinion, by a body of dissenters." 

These, as well as the connection which the schism in the Presbyterian 
Church in 1741-1745 had with the beginning of Princeton," are evidence enough 
that denominationalism, if not even sectarianism, was a factor in its early 
life. In King's College about two-thirds of the 41 trustees were members 
of the Church of England, though they were not chosen officially upon religious 
grounds. The Pennsylvania College is an exception, for its charter shows its 
aim to have been broadly human, though not specifically religious, and cer- 
tainly not denominational. By Brown's charter, however, 22 of her 36 trus- 
tees must be Baptists. There are no statements in the charters of Queen's and 
Dartmouth that they are to be controlled by certain religious sects, yet there is 
no deubt that the Dutch Reformed Church controlled Queen's and that Dart- 
mouth was nonsectarian, but with half the board of trustees constituted of 
ministers,^* the whole enterprise being threatened when the Reverend Wheelock 
refused to accept Governor Wentworth's proposal to make the Bishop of London 
an ex officio member of the board of trustees." It is noticeable, too, that the 
formal request for the charter of Yale was made by a group of Congregational 
clergy, that of Princeton by Presbyterian clergy, that of Brown by the Phila- 
delphia Baptist Association, and that of Queen's by the clergy and congrega- 
tions of the Dutch Reformed Church. 

The first president of Harvard was of Puritan training, and later was 
forced to resign because he agreed with the Anabaptists on the subject of 
infant baptism." The first president of King's was a minister of the Church 
of England, and the inclusion of this requirement in the charter caused 
bitter opposition to the granting of the charter, a bitterness healed only by the 
addition of a professor of divinity "To be chosen by the Consistory of the 
(Dutch) Church for the time being."" The first rector (president) of 
Yale was a Congregational minister. Brown's first president was a Baptist 
minister, and Queen's a minister of the Dutch Church. 

POLITICAL INFLUENCE. 

The political influence is evident enough. Harvard was established by the 
colonial government. William and Mary was founded by the English and 
Virginia Governments, and Kings by the New York Legislature. Yale's charter 

•Charter of the Collegiate School (Yale College) Catalogue, 1912-13, p. 64. 

"• Maclean : " History of the College of New Jersey," Vol. I, 92. 

" Ibid., p. 34. 

"!Ibid., p. 24. 

" Charter, in Chase, F., " History of Dartmouth College and Hanover, N. H., Vol. I, 642. 

"Letter of Wheelock to Gov. Wentworth, of New Hampshire. See History of Dart- 
mouth College and Hanover, N. H., by F. Chase, p. 115 flf. 

1* Pierce, Benjamin: "Hist of Harvard Univ. from its Foundation, in the year 1636, to 
the Period of the Amer. Rev.," p. 10. 

'• Fulton, John. " Memoirs of Frederick A. P. Barnard," p. 302 fif. See also Ecclesi- 
astical records of the State of New York. 



16 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

says the yi>uth are to be instructed to the end that " they may be fitted for 
public employiuent both in the church and civil state," and her first money 
gift was £120 country pay from the colony. 

That these colleges were intended from the beginning to rest upon gifts of 
the people is suggested in the quotations from the charters given above. 
If not so stated, then the fact that the charter is granted to a body of 
men seeking to establish a college, together with the absence of any evidence 
that the state was accepting the responsibility, makes the inference clear. 
It is to be noted, too, that Harvard, Yale, BroAvn, Rutgers, and Dartmouth 
received their names from their first great benefactors, and that in only 
three cases were the first funds of the college granted by the legislatures. 

To seek further evidence that the colonial colleges were or were not State 
institutions is not our present purpose. There is evidence here to show that 
the principle of State aid to higher education is as old as Harvard College. 
Yet the movement for each of the colleges, possibly excepting Harvard, was 
initiated either by a single man with great missionary zeal, or by a group 
of men, and not by the State. 

From this preliminary examination of these foundation documents, then, 
one gathers some notion of the setting which our problem is to have. Judged 
by the facts presented, as well as in terms of the hard work associated with the 
starting of these institutions, philanthropy is clearly the mother of the colonial 
colleges. 

FINANCES OF THE EARLY COLLEGES. 
1. SCAKCITY OF MONET. 

Down to 1693 we had but one college, that founded at Cambridge in 1635. 
There is probably nowhere available to-day a complete record of all the early 
gifts to Harvard, but what have been brought together here will doubtless give 
a fairly satisfactory exhibit of the nature and extent of the earliest philan- 
thropy devoted to higher education in this country. 

There is one thing so characteristic of the early gifts to all the colonial col- 
leges that it must receive brief notice at the outset. That is, the size and kind 
of gifts. Harvard r-eeords the receipt " of a number of sheep bequeathed by 
one man, of a quantity of cotton cloth, worth 9 shillings, presented by another, 
of a pewter flagon, worth 10 shillings, by a third, of a fruit dish, a sugar spoon, 
a silver-tipt jug, one great salt, and one small trecher salt, by others." " From 
Yale's early history the sentiment attaching to the words : " I give these books 
for founding a college in Connecticut," pronounced by each of the trustees as 
he placed his little contribution upon the table, could not be spared, and before 
a charter had been granted a formal gift of the " glass and nails which should 
be necessary to erect a college and hall " had been made," Eleazar Wheelock, 
the founder and first president of Dartmouth, in a letter replying to criticisms 
of the " plainness of the surroundings " at the college, says : " As to the college, 
it owns but one (tablecloth), that was lately given by a generous lady in Con- 
necticut, and of her own manufacture," " and again in a letter to the Honorable 
Commissioners for Indian Affairs, etc., he says, after indicating the impossible 
financial condition in which the college finds itself : " I have, w^ith the assistance 
of a number of those who have contributed their old put-off clothing, supported 
them (the scholars) along hitherto."^" Doubtless similar examples could be 

1'' Peirce : Hist, of Harvard Univ., p. 17. 

18 History of Yale College — Barnard's Jour, of Educ, V, 542, 1858. 

i» Quoted in Chase's Hist, of DartmoutJi College and Hanover, N. H., p. 232. 

» Ibid., p. 546. 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 17 

taken from the subscription lists that yielded relatively large amounts to 
Princeton, Queen's, Brown, and William and Mary if these were extant. 

In these gifts there is reflected much of the simplicity of the social and eco- 
nomic life of that time. Actual money was scarce, as shown by the repeated 
issues of currency by the various Colonies, hence such gifts as Dartmouth's 
sawmills and blacksmith shop and Harvard's printing press entered most nat- 
urally and effectively into the making of colleges in those days. 

2. USE OF THE StTBSCBIPTION METHOD. 

These colleges were all active in gathering funds by the subscription plan 
both in England and in America. Princeton received a subscription of £1,000 
proclamation, given in produce and money, in the southern Colonies in 1769, 
another of £1,000 from Boston in the same year, and £2,000 in England. Brown 
received $4,500 by subscription in England and Ireland in 1764." Blair 
brought home from England £2,500 which he had gathered by subscription for 
William and Mary in 1693. Dartmouth collected £10,000 in England in 1769, 
while King's and Pennsylvania shared equally a subscription fund of £10,000 
gathered in England. These are only the most striking instances of the use 
of this method of collecting the gifts of the people. Through the churches this 
method was repeatedly used and frequently the colonial court or the town 
officials would name a day on which a subscription for the college would be 
asked from every citizen. 

3. FEW LARGE GIFTS. 

In that day of small gifts a few names of great benefactors stand out. 
W^hatever the " moiety " of Harvard's estate was, it was a princely sum in 
the year 1638 for a college with one or two teachers and a half dozen students.'^ 
This was the first great gift to education in America, and it is worthy of note 
that it was not tied up with conditions which might make it useless to the 
Harvard College of the future. It was given by request to the college out- 
right, and constituted half of the fortune and the entire library of one of the 
wealthiest and most noted men in New England, 

The immediate influence of this was great, and is well recorded by the histo- 
rians of the college, Quincy and Peirce. During the next few decades several 
gifts of £100 were received, and in 1650 Richard Saltonstall, of England, gave 
" to the college " goods and money worth 320 pounds sterling. In 1681 Sir 
Matthew Holworthy bequeathed " to be disposed of by the directors as they 
shall judge best for the promotion of learning and promulgation of the Gospel " 
£1,000. The Hon. William Stoughton erected a building in 1699 which cost 
£1,000 Massachusetts currency. These are the large gifts of the seventeenth 
century, with the exception of the gift of William and Mary, of England, to the 
college of Virginia. 

During the next century Thomas Hollis established a professorship of divinity 
at Harvard (1721). In his " orders " ^ he asks " that the interest of the funds 
be used, £10 annually for help to a needy student for the ministry — as many 
of these as the funds will bear." He reserves the right to sanction all appoint- 
ments during his lifetime, then leaves it to the " President and Fellows of 
Harvard College," and asks " that none be refused on account of his belief and 

*» Names of the first subscribers are given in the Collections of the Rhode Island His- 
torical Society, Vol. VII, 273. 

22 A careful discussion of the amount of this legacy Is given in Quincy's History of 
Harvard, Vol. I, appendix I, 460. 

*» See Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix-XLII, for copy of the instrument of gift 



18 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

practice of adult baptism."*^ The conditions which he places upon this, the 
first professorship established in America by private donation, are of interest. 
These are his words : 

I order and appoint a Professor of Divinity, to read lectures in the Hall of 
the College unto the students; the said Professor to be nominated and ap- 
pointed from time to time by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 
and that the Treasurer pay to him forty pounds per annum for his service, and 
that when choice is made of a fitting person, to be recommended to me for my 
approbation, if I be yet living.^ 

In that day of fierce theological controversies these seem to be very liberal 
conditions. 

A few years later Hollis established a professorship of mathematics and 
natural philosophy. In all, his donations total over £5,000, a sum which far 
exceeded any single gift to education in America up to that time. Aside from 
books and goods the purposes of all his gifts were stipulated, but in such gen- 
eral terms and, as his letters show,^° so fully in terms of the wishes of the presi- 
dent and overseers, that it constitutes an example of educational philanthropy 
that is worthy of note. 

Madam Mary Saltonstall, who bequeathed £1,000 in 1730 for educating young 
men " of bright parts and good diligence for service of the Christian Church " ; ^° 
Thomas Hancock, who founded the professorship of Hebrew and other oriental 
languages in 1764 with a gift of £1,000; John Alford, whose executors, acting 
in accordance with his wish that his money should be used to aid " pious and 
charitable purposes," gave £1,300 to establish a professorship " of some particular 
science of public utility " ; " Nicholas Boylston, who bequeathed £1,500 for the 
support of a professor of rhetoric in 1772 ; and Dr. Ezekiel Hersey, whose gift 
established a professorship of anatomy and physic in 1772, are other pre-revo- 
lutionary names which figure on the list of Harvard's greatest benefactors. 

At the Collegiate School of Connecticut the names of Blihu Yale and Rev. 
Dr. George Berkeley, with gifts of £500 and £400, respectively; at the College of 
New Jersey the names of Tennent and Davy, of England, with a gift of over 
£2.000; at King's the name of Joseph Murray with a bequest of his library 
and his estate worth £9,000 in 1762; and at William and Mary the names of 
James Blair and Robert Boyle give us other instances of educational philan- 
thropy on a liberal scale in the colonial days. 

4. GIFTS FEOM TOWNS, CHUBCHES, AND SOCIETIES. 

In addition to these gifts from private individuals there is frequent evidence 
of support coming from towns, churches, and societies. In 1764 the town of 
Boston collected £476 by subscription, which it gave to Harvard to repair the 
loss occasioned by the destruction of Harvard Hall by fire. Nine other towns 
made smaller contributions to the same end, while two years previously 44 
towns had made contributions to the college. Wheelock received funds from 
public collections taken in several eastern towns between 1762 and 1765 which 
were of great value to his struggling school, soon to be known as Dartmouth 

^ See Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix XLII, for copy of tlie instrument of gift. 
'"Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix XLII. 

^ Numerous letters from Mr. Hollis to his agent and others in the Colonies appear as 
appendixes in Vol. I, of Quincy's History of Harvard. 
2»Quincy, Vol. I, p. 421. 
^ Quincy, Vol. II, p. 142. 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 19 

College." In the cases of Princeton, Queen's, King's, and Brown the donations 
from churches were large and frequent. 

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts found the 
colleges appropriate agencies through which to operate in the Colonies. As 
early as 1714 reference is made to a gift of books to the Yale library ; in 1747 
the society made a large donation of books to Harvard, and f 100 in money in 
1764.'°' From the same society King's received £500 sterling and in 1762 a 
library of 1,500 books. The society also assisted in getting a collection made 
in England which raised nearly £6,000 sterling for the college in 1762."" The 
Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England and parts adjacent gave 
to Harvard 1,101 volumes and £300 sterling to repair the loss of its library 
in 1764. The Edinburgh Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge presented 
Harvard with some books in 1766, and the Society for Propagating Christian 
Knowledge, in Scotland, gave £30 for the purchase of books in 1769. 

5. GIFTS OF BOOKS, BUILDINGS, AND LAND. 

It is noticeable in the early years that many gifts of books were made to the 
colleges. However strongly the titles of the books may suggest the religious 
and theological nature of higher education. In those days such gifts were of 
the greatest importance when both the bounds and the methods of knowledge 
lay almost wholly within books alone. 

There is an occasional gift of a building, and frequent reference is made to 
gifts of land. During the colonial period Harvard received from towns and 
individuals over 2,000 acres ; '* Yale received over 1,000 acres, including 300 
acres from the general assembly ; ^ King's received 5 acres in the heart of 
New York City, and 34,000 acres more from the State which were lost to the 
college and the State as well at the close of the Revolution ; °^ Dartmouth 
received 400 acres from proprietors of the town of Hanover ; ** the College of 
New Jersey received 210 acres from the town and people of Princeton; and 
a large portion of Queen's campus was the gift of a private citizen. Gifts of 
real estate were for many years of little productive value however ; so the chief 
support had to be money or something that could be exchanged at any time. 

ANALYSIS OF THE GIFTS TO FOUR OF THE COLONIAL COLLEGES. 

To get at the full meaning of the philanthropy of this period, however, com- 
plete lists of all the gifts to Harvard, Yale, King's, and the College of New 
Jersey, four of the nine colonial colleges, have been made and appear in 
Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. 

Remembering that it is not the absolute amount of a gift, but rather what 
the gift will purchase, that measures its value, we may ask, first: What was 

** Chase : History of Dartmouth, p. 31. 

29 The motive back of this may he seen in tlie following quotation, which throws some 
light on the denominational motives which impelled many gifts. Referring to the gift of 
hooks : "A good investment for the conformity of four graduates of the Presbyterian 
College at Yale, Connecticut, had been mainly effected (in 1722-23) by theological works 
sent to the college in 1714." " Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G., 1701-1900," p. 799. 

so Ibid., pp. 775, 798. 

8' Barnard's Journal, Vol. IX, 159, gives a full list of gifts of real estate. 

«2 Ibid., Vol. X, 693, mentions the important gifts. 

33 A History of Columbia Univ., 1754-1904, p. 35 flE. 

** Chase : History of Dartmouth, p. 174. 



20 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

the size of the problem which philanthropy had undertaken and what did 
education cost? 

1. SIZE OF THE COLONIAL COLLEGES. 

The numbers of students attending these colleges can be judged by the 
number of their graduates. Harvard rarely if ever had over 100 students be- 
fore the year 1700, and at no time in the colonial period did she have over 
350 or 400 students, while Yale and King's had fewer still. Pennsylvania 
graduated in all only 135 students before 1776, Brown 60, and Dartmouth 31. 

The teaching stalf was also small. The president's administrative duties 
were insignificant, his chief function being that of instructor. Before 1720 
Harvard's faculty consisted of a president and from 1 to 4 tutors. At Yale 
the president was assisted by from 1 to 4 tutors, rarely more than 3, before 
the year 1755. After 1720 Harvard's faculty gradually increased to 9; Yale's 
to 8 ; and King's to 11. In the case of King's a much larger percentage were 
from the start of professorial rank. 

Thus, judged by the size of student body and faculty, the actual work done 
in the colonial colleges was small, and great sums of money were not needed. 

2. THE COST OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION. 

The cost of a college education at Harvard in its early days is shown in an 
old account book for the period 1649-50 to 1659, from which it appears that for 
those graduating from 1653 to 1659 the total expense ranged from £30 25s. IJ d. 
to £61 lis. 8|d., or from about $100 to about $200 for four years' residence in 
college. 

An itemized account of a student, Thomas Graves, of the class of 1656, by 
quarters, shows that he paid about 32s. for tuition. His first quarter's expenses 
appear as follows : '° 

Pounds. S. D. Qr. 

8, 10, 54 Commones and siznges 2 8 9 2 

Tuition, 8 s ; study, rente, and bed, 4 s ; fyer 

and candelle 2 s 14 

Power loode of wood 17 4 

The other three quarters' expenses were similar to this. In 1797 this cost, 
according to an account of Judge Daniel Appleton White, given in volume 6 
of the Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, page 272, would have 
been about $480 for the four years. 

Students' bills were often paid in butter, rye, malt, hog, lamb, egg?, etc. At 
Princeton, Maclean tells us that a student's entire expenses in 1761 were £25 6s. 
proclamation money. 

A fairly complete account of the tuition cost at Yale, as set forth in Table 2, 
data for which were gathered from Dexter's Annals, shows the tuition not to 
have been much different at the beginning from the above account of tuition 
cost at Harvard a half century earlier. 

=EProm Mass. Hist. Proc, 1860-1862, Vol. V, p. 60. 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 
Table 2. — Cost of education at Yale College. 



21 



Date. 


Tuition. 


Room. 


Board. 


Presi- 
dent's 
salary. 


Salary 
of tutor. 


1701.. 
1704.. 
1712.. 
1718.. 
1719.. 


Shillings. 
30 
30 
30 
30 






C.P.i 

120 


50 
50 










100 
140 








20s. 


4s. 4d. 




1725. . 
1726.. 
1727.. 
1728. . 
1729.. 
1734. . 
1737. . 
1738.. 
1740.. 
1742.. 
1745. . 
1748. . 
1749.. 
1754.. 

1755. . 
1759.. 
1764.. 
1767.. 


30 
40 
50 
50 
50 
50 
60 
60 
60 
24 
17 
17 
20 
24 

24 
26 
30 








4s. 8d. 


140 
212 
250 
300 
300 






65 
60 
65 
65 ■ 








1 


1 


1 


300 
320 








1 




! 












(22 to 26 S.I 






3s. or 4s. 
8d. 






















1 








200 
200 




1768. . 








(2) 


1769. . 
1777.. 


48 


6s. 






160 















1 In country pay 120 equaled about £60 sterling or one-third. 
2£57 6s.8d. 

At Dartmouth in 1773 tuition and board together were £20 a year. At Wil- 
liam and Mary the tuition in 1724 was " 20s. entrance and 20s. a year for pupil- 
age for each scholar." A woman offered to " undertake the keeping of the 
college table at the rate of £11 per annum for each scholar, with the other ad- 
vantages allowed to Mr. Jackson.'' " At Princeton tuition was £3 in 1754, £4 
in 1761, £5 in 1773, and board in 1761 was £15 a year, according to Maclean. 

Reference to the prices of a few well-known commodities will help one to 
appreciate the apparently small gifts which we are to examine. In 1641 com- 
mon l#.bor was worth Is. 6d. per day, the next year corn was worth 2s. 6d. and 
wheat and barley 4s. per bushel. In 1670 wheat was worth 5s., corn 3s. ; the 
year following labor was worth from Is. 3d. to Is. 8d. In 1704 corn was worth 
2s. and wheat 3s. 8d. In 1727 wheat was worth 6s. 6d. to 8s. In 1752 corn was 
worth 4s. and wheat 6s. In 1776 corn was 3s. and wheat 6s. 8d.°'' 



3. SALARIES OF COLLEGE PROFESSORS. 

One further item of interest in this connection is the salary of the teaching 
staff. This was the chief item of expenditure in every college and is a fair 
index to the value of any gift or to the value of the funds available for the 
use of the college at any time. As shown in Table 2, Yale's president received 
from £60 to £300, while the salary of a tutor was very much less. Maclean 
thinks that Princeton's president did not receive over £.50 annually before 1754. 
In that year his salary was fixed at £150 proclamation, rising to £200 proclama- 

^ " Proc. of Visitors of William and Mai-y College, 1716," in The Virginia Magazine of 
Histoi-y and Biography, Vol. IV, p. 174. 

^^ From Weeden's Economic and Social Histoi-y of New England, 1620-1 7S9, Vol. If. 



22 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

tion in 1757 and to £400 in 1766, only to be reduced again to f 2S0 with the usual 
perquisites, and finally to £200 in 1767. In 1768 it rose again to £350 proclama- 
tion, or about £206 sterling. In 1752 Maclean states the salary of a tutor to 
have been £20 sterling and £66 in 1767. The three professors at Princeton in 
1767 received: Divinity, £175; mathematics, £150; language and logic, £125. 
In 1654 the overseers of Harvard College offered Rev. Mr. Charles Chanuing 
the presidency of the college at a salary of £100 per annum.'* From Judge 
Sewell's diary the salary in 1698 appears to have been £200.'* 

At the close of the colonial period Harvard's president was receiving £300,''° a 
professor about £200, and the librarian £60. In October, 1766, a committee of 
the colonial assembly of Connecticut reported that Yale ought to have : 

1. A president, at £150 per annum. 

2. A professor ©f divinity, at £113 6s. 8d. per annum. 

3. A senior tutor, at £65 Is. 4d. per annum. 

4. Three junior tutors, at £51 Is. 4d. per annum each. 

Salaries at William and Mary were little different. President Blair, the 
first president, received £150 at first, and later only £100, increasing in 1755 to 
£200. During the same period a professor received £80 and fees of 20s. per 
student. In 1729 each professor received £150, but no fees.*^ In 1770 the 
president received £200, each of two divini-ty professors £200, two other pro- 
fessors each £100, master of grammar school £150, first usher £75, second 
usher £40.*^ 

When one considers that the entire expenditures of Harvard for the year 
1777 were but £1,086 18s. 2d. and that the college had but £386 18s. 2d. to pay 
it with, the residue being paid " by assessments on the scholars for study-rent, 
tuition, and other necessary charges, amounting communibus annis to about 
£700 ; *' or that the average annual income of William and Mary College during 
the decade 1754 to 1764 was £1,936 14s. 6fd.,** these salaries appear relatively 
high. 

THE FUNCTION OF PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES. 

What now is the character of the educational philanthropy which was 
practiced in the midst of these conditions? Was it constructive, or did it follow 
tradition? It might be hard to answer these questions to our entire satisfac- 
tion, but an examination of the parts of Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, which refer to 
this period, will throw light on the subject. 

s8 Quincy : Vol. I, Appendix IV. 
39 Ibid., Vol. I, Appendix XI, p. 490. 
*o Ibid., Vol. II, p. 241. 
*i Tyler, pp. 137, 144. 

*2 Tyler quoted these amounts from the college bursar's books, Williamsburg, the Old 
Colonial Capitol, p. 158. 
« Quincy : Vol. II, p. 241. 
** Tyler, Lyon G., " Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital," p. 156. 



THE COLONIAL PEEIOD. 



23 



Table 1i.— Donations and grants to Harvard University, 1636-1910- 
tion of the donations by individuals.^ 



-Distribu- 





Total dona- 
tions by 
individuals. 


Per 

cent 
of all 
gifts 
from 
Eng- 
land. 


Total 
grant by 
colony. 


Per cent of total donations by individuals given to— 


Dates. 


■6 
© 

c 




'3 

a. 

& 

PL, 


1 


ca ^ 
© 

p^ 


el a 


ft 
3 



i 

"0 

t-t 


It 

? 


03 

3 


Per cent in 
form of— 




3 


3 
a* 

n 


1636-1640 


$1,936 

4,826 

333 

1,475 

6,785 

266 
4, 754 
7,745 

900 
7, 041 

2,558 
462 
3,724 
1,498 
1,232 

2,979 
9,171 
8,259 
5,153 
2,496 

2,643 
2,973 
1,277 
1,112 

2,584 

17,397 
6,336 

12,989 
1,814 
1,800 

7,905 
9,163 
4,000 
33, '333 
5,444 

47,333 
76,700 
60,003 
145,652 
44,951 

31, 180 
303, 702 
205,383 
131,898 
254,713 

3 680,917 

3 254, 741 

773, 427 

784, 541 

1, 487, 508 

2,594,554 
1, 586, 855 
4,306,609 
7,648,309 
7,309,950 


'"12 

63 

9 

6 

42 

34 


$2, 002 


99 
60 
100 
27 
79 

37 
36 
. 5 

82 
75 

100 
100 

10 

89 

13 

11 
30 

75 
26 
60 

9 

3 
16 

9 
38 

42 
13 
14 
44 
3 


1 

40 


100 

91 














100 


1641-1645 


9 
100 
22 

15 

"64"" 
.5 






9 


31 


100 




1646-1650 


445 

666 

1,665 






100 


1651-1655 


73 
21 

63 

64 

99.5 

18 

25 

"90" 
11 

87 

89 
60 
25 
74 
40 

91 
97 
84 
91 
62 

58 
87 
86 
56 
97 

100 
100 
100 
100 
100 

100 

95 

97 

34 
100 

100 

96 

98 
100 

88 

88 
78 
93 
95 
83 

79 
78 
74 
86 
87 


88 
85 

100 

36 

99.5 
100 
100 

87 
100 
100 
100 
100 

88 
25 
39 
40 
46 

48 
97 
83 
81 
79 

46 
100 

10 
100 

14 

58 

"87." 5 
6 
8 

1 
15 
17 

1 
14 

10 
25 
43 

58 
38 

7 

9 
64 
16 
22 

23 
29 
52 
36 
20 








18 

1 


100 

61 

90 
100 
99.5 
33 
30 




1656-1660 


15 
63 






39 


1661-1665 






10 


1666-1670 


66 
1,831 
1,665 
1,998 

1,665 
1,332 
1,831 




63 






1671-1675 


.5 






1676-1680 






IS 
25 


67 '^ 


1681-1685. . 










70 


1686-1690. . 


13 


13 






100 


1691-1695. . 








3 

100 

n 

54 

77 
90 
90 
75 
97 

77 

100 

3 


97 


1696-1700. . 














1701-1705. . 








(') 




89 


1706-1710. . 


32 

70 
11 
15 
53 

80 

37 

78 
78 
90 
77 

13 
17 

27 


2,337 

2,758 
11, 107 
907 
4,485 
2,354 

654 

378 

942 

9,459 

2,946 

35,507 
14, 162 
6,594 
3,'203 

4,878 

3,220 


22 
75 
61 
60 
54 

52 
3 
17 
19 
21 

54 


50 




46 


1711-1715. . 








23 


1716-1720. . 
1721-1725. . 
1726-1730. . 
1731-1735. . 


37 
12 
25 
17 

11 


"2.5"" 

33 
35 

44 
3 
12 


7 
4 
25 


"9"" 
2 


10 
10 
25 
3 


1736-1740. . 
1741-1745. . 


12 




23 


1746-1750. . 






97 


1751-1755. . 






100 


1756-1760. . 


2 


20 
23 






47 

3 
97 
35 
66 
40 

58 


53 


1761-1765. . 
1766-1770. . 




1 
49 
19 


97 
3 


1771-1775. . 
1776-1780. . 


90 




64 


.7 


65 
44 


1781-1785. . 
1786-1790. . 


86 

42 
100 
12.5 
94 
92 

99 

85 
83 
99 
86 

90 
75 
57 
42 
62 

93 
91 
36 

84 
78 

77 
71 
48 
64 
80 


80 


42 
79 
12 
94 


4 




60 
42 


1791-1795. . 






100 


1796-1800. . 










87 


12 
100 

53 
52 
26 
29 
14 

93 
37 
52 
39 
62 

29 
96 
75 
51 
66 

24 
45 
43 
79 
64 


88 


1801-1805. . 










1806-1810. . 








100 


1811-1815. . 




20,000 
50,000 
30,000 


'"5" 
3 
66 


.7 
'"2" 

"23" 

6 
.1 


99 
36 
76 
21 
44 

16 




47 


1816-1820. . 
1821-1825. . 
1826-1830. . 




12 
16 

.6 
14 


48 
74 
71 


1831-1835. . 






86 


1836-1840. . 








7 


1841-1845. . 






4 

2 


15 
I 
12 
.2 

2 
14 
8 
8 
3.5 

5 

10.8 
5 

3.5 
9 


9 

.2 
4 
11 

3 
23 

12 

16 
4 

1.5 
1.4 
3.4 


63 


1846-1850. . 






48 


1§51-1855. . 






.7 
.3 

""■3" 
.3 

"h" 

1.8 
.2 


29 

8 

.2 

"h" 

12 

8 

.03 
3 
11 
8 
9 


61 


1856-1860. . 






12 

2 
22 
7 
5 
17 

21 
22 
26 
14 
13 


38 


1861-1865. . 






71 


1866-1870. . 






4 


1871-1875. . 






25 


1876-1880. . 






iqV 


1881-1885.. 






33 


1886-1890. . 






76 


1891-1895. . 






55 


1896-1900. . 






57 


1901-1905. . 






21 


1906-1910. . 






36 











1 These data were compiled from three sources mainly. Those before 1851 were taken from Quincy's 
History of Harvard University, 2 vols., published in 1840, and from the lists of " Grants and Donations to 
Harvard College" published in Barnard's American Journal of Education, Vol. IX, pp. 139-160, Sept., 1860. 
Those for the years 18.52-1910 were taken from the annual reports of the president and treasurer of Harvard 
College. 

2 Gift of 27 acres of land, income to be used for scholarships for students from town of Dorchester. 
» Data for the years 1862-63 and 1867-68 are not included. 



24 



PHTLANTPTROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 4. — Donations and grants to Yale University, 1701-1900 — Distribution oj 
donations by individuals.^ 





Total 
grants 

by 
colony. 


Total 
donations 
by indi- 
viduals. 


Per cent of total donations by individuals given to 


- 


Per cent in 
form of — 


Dates. 


'6 
"3 


P< 

ft 

m 


Ph 


"Sfl 
9 

CL, 


ft 

31 

Mft 


ft 

^i 

■a 
2 

"a 
m 


ft 

3 

1 




II 


''is, 

B ^ 

Ph m 


3 


'0 




3 
O" 


P3 


1701-1705. 
1706 1710 


SI, 335 
1,335 
3,627 
1,758 

4, 005 
2, 203 
2,448 
2,997 

2,679 
5,233 
4,520 


$134 




100 


100 














100 


100 










1 






1711-1715. 
1716-1720. 

1721-1725. 
1726-1730. 
1731-1735. 
1736-1740. 

1741-1745. 
1746-1750. 
1751-1755. 
1756-1760 


1,424 
5,416 

808 

1,971 

■1?,608 

67 

352 

53 

159 

968 

1,041 

109 

62 

1,290 

3,233 

1, 458 

f 1,122 


""87' 
51 

19 

80 

"'89' 

"73' 

50 


100 
13 

49 
100 
100 
100 

81 
20 
100 
100 

100 
11 

100 
27 

50 
100 
100 


100 
100 

100 
100 

1 

100 

29 

100 

11 

82 

100 
100 
100 
100 

50 
100 














100 
100 

100 
100 
100 
100 

50 
100 
100 
100 

90 
100 
100 

80 

50 
100 














12 






























100 




99 




14.5 
52 




99 








50 




71 

""S9' 
18 




80 






50 


37 

89 
97 

82 








16 
10 




'13"'" 
0.5 


89 
18 














1761 1765 


1,460 
3, 595 
1,282 






5 
10 


10 


1766-1770 










1771 1775 
















1776 1780 
















20 


1781 1785 




50 














50 


1786 1790 






22 




1 








1791 1795 


|40,629 


100 






8 
100 


100 


1796 1800 














1801-1805 


























1806-1810 




2,000 




100 




100 












100 


100 




1811-1815 


8,785 














1816 1820 


6,000 

78, 848 

14, 664 

126,138 

12, 000 

38, 100 

15, 850 

177,490 

329,500 

434,648 

743, 481 

1,135,007 

417,000 

623,200 
3, 349, 471 
1,-553,382 
1,729,094 


100 

2 
3 

30 

"25' 
21 

2 
6 
15 
33 

53 

1 

21 

35 


98 
97 
70 
100 

100 
75 
79 

100 

98 
94 

85 
66 

47 
99 
79 
65 


100 

30 
75 
32 
17 

31 
27 
95 

58 

53 
62 
89 
45 

98 
92 

74 
81 
















50 

98 
100 
97.3 
18 

100 
44 
95 
92 

97 
92 
93 
46 

85 
18 


50 


1821-1825 




70 
25 
68 
83 

69 
71 
5 

42 

47 
38 
11 
55 

20 
8 
26 
19 


58 
6 


20 
3 

1 


50 


15 


1 

"3"'" 

16 


3 
34 

'83"" 


2 


1826-18;J0. 
1831 18:35 


7,000 


21 1 2 


i.7 


1836 1840 








82 


1841 1845 








66 






1846 1850 








8 


""5""" 


34 


56 


1851-1855 




30 
40 

21 

11 

42 

5 

21 
6 

10 
3 


9 
60 

6 
17 
24 

2 

28 

13 

26 

8 




5 


1856 1860 




24 

44 
9 
11 

28 

2 

1 

5 

15 


6 

4 

■"5"" 
3 

1.5 

'io " 

3 


8 


1861 1865 








3 


1866-1870 




0.5 
.3 
4 

"3"' 
1 
.5 


2 
2 
4 

1.5 
5 
3 
4 


8 


1871-1875. 




7 


1876-1880 




54 


1881-1885. 




15 


1886-1890 




82 


1891 1895 






1893-1900 

















' Sources for this table: Conn. Colonial Records; Dexter— Yale Biographies and Annals, 1701; Steiner— 
Hist, of Educ. in Conn.; Bagg— Four Years at Yale; Stile's Diary, Vol. Ill; Trumbull— Hist, of Conn. 
Vol. II; Papers of New Haven Hist. Soc; Kingsley— Yale Book; Baldwin— Hist, of Yale College; and 
reports of the president and treasurer of Yale College. 

- £3,000 of this was the value of a farm which the college leased for 999 years, and though now worth 
1140,000, brings the university only $145 per year. New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. I, p. 156. 



THE COLON'IAL PEEIOD. 



25 



Table 5. — Donations and grants to Princeton University, 1745-1856 and 1906- 
1910 — Distribution of the donations hy individuals.^ 





Total 
donations 
hj indi- 
viduals. 


Total 
grants 

by 

Colony. 


Per cent of total donations by individuals given to— 


Given in 
form of— 


Dates. 


4 

a 

s 


aj 
o 
Qt 
t-, 
3 
Pi 

CO 


6 

3 
a 

<a 


* d 

(1( 


ft 
2 


1 




"3 
ft2 

•is 


3 


« 3 

'^ M 
.2 M 


1 


s 
i 

•a 


g 

& 

3 

Ph 

td 
a 
'3 


-4.3 



1 

3 
a< 

« 


1745-1750 
1751 1755 


$3,953 

16,261 

973 




100 

1 


"99' 

100 


100 
100 
100 


















99 
100 
100 


1 












25 
100 


67 


25 
100 


5 




1756-1760 










{') 




1761 1765 


{') 












1766 1770 


7,058 

146 

3,300 

1, 550 

3,657 

10,677 

80 

53, 278 

13,500 
3,480 
3,080 
9,080 

17, 030 
4,785 
3,185 
6,080 

3, 540 

105, 080 

4,759,115 


92 


8 
100 

"94' 

90 
100 
100 

99 

97 
100 
100 
100 

97 
100 
100 

63 

100 

100 

77 


79 
100 
100 

69 

18 
100 

"99' 

3 

88 
98 
33 

27 
99 
98 
99 

98 
8 
15 


21 


6 






1 




8 


"ioo"" 


99 
100 


1 


1771 1775 










1776 1780 




100 
6 

10 
















100 


1781 1785 




31 

82 








63 
90 




93 

81 
100 




31 
9 


69 


1786 1790 










91 


1791 1795 










100 


1796-1800 


$8, 010 


"'i' 

3 


100 
1 

97 

12 

2 

67 

73 
1 
2 

1 

2 
90 

85 


100 












100 
98 

93 

88 
100 
100 

100 
75 
98 
63 

100 
100 

87 




1801 1805 




2 


1 

16 
17 
9S 
33 

15 

44 
60 
37 

54 
3 


82 
"27" 


1 

93 
97 
97 
33 

11 
62 
97 
49 

98 


5 

.5 
6 


2 


1806-1810 




55 
12 
2 

1 

70 
1 
2 
1 

2 

1 






4 


1811 1815 








12 


1816-1820 












1821-1825 






66 






1826-1830 




3 




1831 1835 








25 


1836-1840 










2 


1841 1845 




37 






37 


1846-1850 










1851-1855 






95 
4 


'""i' 


3 1 

.01 5 




1908 1910 




:;3 


13 

















1 Data for this table were taken from Maclean's Hist, of the College of New Jersey; Murray's Hist, of 
Educ. in New Jersey; and from reports of the president and treasurer of the college. 

2 In 1860 the Ubrary contained about 12,000 volumes, practically all of which had been donated. See 
Maclean, Hist, of the College of New Jersey, Vol. I, p. 203. 

3 Right to conduct lottery. 

There were three sources of income for the colleges : The general court, philan- 
thropy, and student fees. In the accompanying tables we are concerned with 
that of philanthropy mainly, though for comparative purposes, column 1 gives 
the amounts received from the State. 

The gifts are grouped into five-year periods. Column 2 gives us a picture of 
the stream of donations that has been flowing for so many years into the 
treasuries of four of our oldest colleges. 

The first large grouping of the gifts is that which shows them to have been 
given to the college unconditionally on the one hand, or with certain conditions 
which wholly or in part determine how the money shall be spent on the 
other. The next grouping is that which states whether the gift is for present 
use or for permament endowment. Further than this it is a question of just 
what is the specific condition. Is it for the library, for scholarships, for appa- 
ratus, etc.? 

FUNCTION or THE STATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

During the eighteenth century Harvard received relatively much more from 
the State than in the seventeenth century. Yet during the entire colonial period 
the loss of that support would have been almost fatal to the college. The same 



26 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 6. — Donations cmd grants to Columhia University, 1754-1910 — Distribu- 
tions of the donations by individuals.^ 





Total dona- 
tions by- 
individ- 
uals. 


Total 
grants 

by 
colony. 


Per cent of total donations by individuals given to — 


In form of— 


Dates. 


o 
O 


3 

K 

CO 




II 


'=« a M 

3 §*§ 

.2 '3 13 


ft 
2 

i 

1 

o 


<v <a v3 


3 


3 


1 

3 

W 


1750-1755 




S21,593 
27,580 
4,860 






















1756-1760 


$115, 828 
38, 466 
















29 
99 


71 


1761-1765 
















1 


1766-1770 


















1771-1775 






1 


















1776-1780 






1 


















1781-1785 


4, 860 


12, 462 

4,860 

48,600 

11,935 

8,958 
2,700 


1 
















100 


1786-1790 




















1791-1795 


















. 1 


1796-1800 




















1 


1801-1805 
























1806-1810 






1 
















1811-1815 








1 1 












1816-1820 




10,000 






i 1 












1821-1825 
























1826-1830 


























1831-1835 


























1836-1840 












... 1 - -- 












1841-1845 


20,000 






100 





100 




100 








100 


1846-1850 














1851-1855 


1,000 
1,150 
2,800 
200 
4,300 

10,000 

18,945 

247,911 

4,974,385 

3,530,160 

3,910,570 
4,382,015 






100 
13 
100 
100 
100 

100 
95 
60 
92 
99.7 

97 
74 


'ioo"" 

28 
100 
100 

40 
37 
9 

82 
44 

51 
52 


100 








13 

28 
100 
100 
100 

40 
95 
31 
93 
68 

92 
75 


87 


185*^-1860 




87 




1 




72 


1861-1865 


72 


72 


1 






1866-1870 












1871-1875 


















1876-1880 






60 
63 
91 
18 
56 

49 

48 






50 
63 
14 

3 

2.5 

0.6 
2.4 


"34'" 

22 

35 

2 
1.5 


60 


1881-1885 




5 

40 
8 
0.3 

3.0 
26 






5 


1886-1890 






69 


1891-1895 






7 


1896-1900 

1901-1905 
1906-1910 


■"'o.T 


6 

12 
15 


32 

8 
25 



I The data for this table were taken from an oflicial publication of the university entitled "Columbia 
University — Gifts and Endowments — 1754-1904," and from the reports of the treasurer of the university 
covering the years subsequent to 1904. This covers the Columbia Corporation alone and does not include 
Barnard and Teachers' Colleges. 

is true of Yale and Columbia. For Princeton, however, there is a different 
story. Only once during the colonial period was any aid given by the State to 
Princeton. In 1762 the assembly granted the right to hold a lottery for an 
amount not to exceed £5,000.^* This was very real help, and since it involved a 
special act of the legislature it is fair to assume that it shows friendliness on 
the part of the State. A few years after this period closes, the State granted 
to the college £600 annually for three years, to be paid in quarterly payments.*" 
In the report of the committee which represented the college before the legis- 
lature it appears that legislators ra'sed the objection that the institution was 
under the " sole and exclusive control of one denomination of Christians." 
The difficulties with which this act was passed and the result of the act show 
the extent to which the College of New Jersey was not a State institution. 



*5 Murray : Hist, of Educ. in New Jersey, p. 27. 

^o Maclean, Vol. I, p. 13, gives a copy of the report of a committee appointed to apply to 
the State for aid. 



THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 27 

It is said on good authority, declares Maclean, that not one of the legislators 
who voted for the act was returned to his office at the ensuing election, so 
bitter was the feeling against the act.^' 

It is to be remembered that New Jersey, unlike Connecticut and Massachu- 
setts, was settled by people of several different religious sects, and that while 
religious education of the Congregational type practically meant State educa- 
tion for Yale and Harvard, it meant only church education for the New Jersey 
college." 

A more careful study of the problem of higher education and the State is 
inviting, but a few illustrations to show that State education of collegiate grade, 
while understood and practiced in part, was not a fully established educational 
social philosophy in the colonial days, sei'ves our purpose. Wheelock's Indian 
school received aid, £50 per annum for five years, once from the Colon.v of New 
Hampshire, and after the school became Dartmouth College it received aid of 
£60 in 1771 and £500 in 1773, after which no formal request was ever made, 
though one was prepared in 1775.** New Hampshire apparently had no thought 
of Dartmouth as a State institution. 

The College of Rhode Island was essentially a denominational school estab- 
lished in a State where the Baptist faith predominated but by the church of 
that denomination in several Colonies. There should theoretically have been 
no hindrance to making their college quite as much an object of State concern 
as was the case with Tale, Harvard, and Kings ; but the facts show that little 
help was ever received by the college from the Colony, due, no doubt, to Rhode 
Island's insistence upon a real separation of church and state. 

At William and Mary the relation of college and state varied with the 
governors of the province, several of whom were exceedingly unfriendly to 
higher education in general, and to President Blair and his college in particu- 
lar. But in spite of these the college received much genuine assistance from 
the Colony. At the outset it was granted a duty on liquors imported, and on 
skins and furs exported, which by October, 1695, amounted to £441 sterling,'" 
and " upwards of 3,000 pounds communibus annis.'' " In 1718 a grant of £1,000 
was made by the Colony to establish three scholarships (part of this fund was 
invested in negro slaves). In 1726 a grant of £200 annually for 21 years was 
made from the duty on liquors. In 1734 this increased to include the entire 
income of the 1 penny per gallon duty on liquors, providing that part of the 
money should be used for the purchase of books, each of which was to bear 
a label, reading " The gift of the General Assembly of Virginia in the Year 
1734." ^ In 1759 the college received another grant in the form of a tax on 
peddlers. Without making the list exhaustive, it is evident that the State 
took an interest in the college and bore a fairly substantial part of its financial 
burdens, even if it did not assume the real responsibility. 

CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL GIFTS. 
In the case of Harvard there seems to have been a gradual and fairly per- 
sistent tendency for people to specify how the college should use their gifts. 
At Yale there was somewhat of a general tendency toward unconditional gifts, 

"Maclean, Vol. I, p. 18. 

*« During and following the Revolution Yale could not get help from the State for much 
the same reason. The legislature demanded that " civilians " be placed on the board of 
trustees before the State rendered aid. This was finally done. 

« Chase, pp. 272, 277. ' 

"> Bruce, Philip Alexander : Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Cen- 
tury, Vol. I, p. 395. 

•1 Howe's History of the Colony of Virginia, p. 325. 

•» This is another evidence that the State did not consider the college a State institation. 
111512'— 22 3 



28 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAjST HIGHER EDUCATION. 

but most of the early gifts were conditional. At Princeton also there was a 
tendency to place some condition upon the gifts, and with the emphasis in the 
early years somewhat between that for Yale, which emphasizes conditional 
and that for Harvard which emphasizes unconditional gifts. 

In the early days a college was just one thing. It was a teaching institution 
only and there was little occasion for giving other than " to the college." Yet 
many gifts were carefully safeguarded with conditions. 

A glance at the succeeding columns of the tables, however, and an explana- 
tion of some of the large figures in the " purpose specified " column will suffice 
to show that the main current, even of the conditional gifts, was generally in 
line with the fundamental aim and practical needs of the college. Taking the 
73 per cent in the " purpose specified " column of the Harvard table, the ex- 
planation is simply £60 worth of books and £251 15s. 6d. toward " the repairs 
of the college." The 99.5 per cent in 1671-1675 is largely accounted for by the 
contributions from 44 towns " for the erection of a new building for the 
college," amounting to over £2,000. The 90 per cent in 1696-1700 is mostly 
accounted for by the cost of Stoughton Hall, built and presented to the college 
by the Hon. William Stoughton in 1699. The first 100 per cent in the " purpose 
specified " column of the Princeton table was gifts to the aid of pious and 
indigent students, a very common mode of assistance in those days, as it is 
now in many colleges. In the Yale table the first 100 per cent refers to books 
for the library, and the second to nearly 1,000 volumes, mostly from England. 

GIFTS FOR PRESENT USE AND FOR ENDOWMENT. 

The next general grouping of the funds is into those for present use and 
those for permanent endowment. It is very noticeable that all through this 
jieriod the gifts were in the main to be used at once by the college. The " dead 
hand," good or bad, plays little part in this period of our educational history. 
The 100 per cent in the Harvard, table, " permanent endowment " column, 
1646-1650, was just one bequest, and that to the college in general. The 64 
per cent in 1666-1670 was for the establishment of " two fellows and two 
scholars." The 75 per cent in 1716-1730 was for the maintenance of preachers 
and for the education of pious young men for the ministry, both entirely 
appropriate to the needs of Harvard at that time. This same tendency appears 
to have been true for the other colleges. 

HOW GIFTS WERE CONDITIONED. 

What and how many kinds of restrictions were placed upon these gifts? 
From the very start there are restricted gifts, at first few in number, and 
falling within the main object of the college, but gradually increasing in 
number and variety until in the present day they are extremely numerous. 
During the period under discussion, however, they were few in number. They 
are for buildings, for the library, for aid of pious and indigent students, for 
scholarships and fellowships, for equipment, and for professorships. 

INFLUENCE OF CONDITIONAL GIFTS UPON THE GROWTH OF THE COLLEGE. 

To what extent do these restricted gifts tend to broaden the purpose and • 
function of the college? There can be cited numerous instances of where an 
entirely new field of work has been undertaken by a college as the result of 
such a gift. Observatories, scientific schools, hospitals, and botanical' gardens 
are common illustrations of this. In the colonial days, however, when the 



THE COLONIAL PEEIOD. 29 

economic and social life was restricted ; when for the most part professional 
life meant the niinistrj-, and a ministry whose profession rested upon accepted 
truths and philosophies long ago written down in books, and not upon ability 
and training in the discovery of new truth and the making of new creeds ; when 
all learning was book learning; we expect the conditions placed upon bene- 
factions to reflect these ideas and conditions. 

To say that " endowment " has not produced an educational experiment until 
it has completely departed from the common aims and ideas of people in gen- 
eral, however, is to restrict the meaning of educational experiment. The found- 
ing of a professorship of divinity in 1721 was an experiment in a way, even 
though theology was then the center of the college curriculum. If this pro- 
fessorship did nothing startling by way of educational experimentation, it at 
least shifted the emphasis in the Harvard curriculum, which means that it 
made Harvard a slightly different Harvard from what it had been. 

So, while an examination of the tables shows that nothing very unusual was 
started by gifts during this period, it also shows that without the gifts the 
colleges would have been different from what they were. 

A study of the gifts " to pious and indigent students " is especially interest- 
ing. Tale seems to have received nothing for this purpose before 1S25. The 
same is not true, however, for either Harvard or Princeton. The fact that the 
tendency to add to these funds to-day, and that they are of such large conse- 
quence in our theological colleges particularly, gives us a special interest in 
the early ancestry of this particular kind of beneficence. We can not help 
noting the absence of such funds in our modern scientific schools. To say that 
our present research fellowship is the same thing is not true. Competitive 
scholarships and fellowships are very old methods of helping students and not 
in any way connected with the funds here considered. In colonial times 
the condition almost always read " for the benefit of pious and indigent students 
of the gospel ministry," or words to that effect. Since a large percentage of 
colonial college students were training for the ministry,^'' it is perhaps unfair 
to assume that indigence was regarded as a virtue or proper qualification for 
entering that profession. The income of a minister was about equal to that of 
a professor, so the economic outlook for the theological student could scarcely 
be responsible for the ministry calling its members largely from the indigent 
class. Whatever the explanation, it seems a fact that colonial Harvard and 
Princeton did subsidize a class of students who classified as " indigent, pious, 
and desirous of entering the ministry." 

The plan of establishing scholarships and fellowships, granted on basis of 
scholarships and general ability, appear?, first at Harvard in 1643, with a gift of 
£100 from Lady Moulson, of England. There were very few such funds es- 
tablished in the colonial period, but there were enough to show that the idea, 
old in Europe of course, had been brought into the colonial college. 

The gifts for the establishment of professorships, usually regarded as on the 
whole the most useful of all conditional benefactions to higher education," have 
played some part in the development of our colleges since the first gift for that 
purpose in 1721, when the Hollis professorship of divinity was established at 
Harvard. From then on these gifts take a prominent place among Harvard's 
benefactions, and there are a few such gifts to Yale and Princeton. Table 7 
will show, in order of their establishment, the kinds of professorships which 
were established in this period, the field of work each covered, and how each 
was endowed. 

°3 See " Professional Distribution of College and University Graduates," by Bailey B. 
Burritt, U. S. Bu. of Bduc. Bui., 1912, No. 19. 

" See President Eliot's An. Rep. of Harvard Univ., 1901-2, p. 61. 



30 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

Tablk 7. — Distribution mid character of pre-Recolutiunanj professorships. 



Dates. 


Field of work to be covered. 


How endowed. 


Place. 


Founding gift. 


1721 




Gift by Thos. HolUs 


Harvard 

Harvard 

Yale 


Income £40 an- 


1727 
1754 


Mathematics and natural 
philosophy. 


Gift by Thos. Holhs 


nually. 
£390 sterling. 


Gift by Phihp Livingston 

Bequest by Thos. Hancock. . 

Gift by Jno. Williams 

Bequest by Nicholas Boylston 


£28i sterling. 


1764 
1766 


Hebrew and other oriental 
languages. 


Harvard 

Princeton 

Harvard 


£1,000 sterling. 
£100 sterling. 


1771 


Rhetoric and oratory 


£1,500 sterling. 



Here are six professorships — three of which are divinity and two others 
more or less allied to divinity, four founded by bequest and two by gift, all 
but one on a fair foundation and that one soon enlarged by subscription — 
founded in the half century preceding the Revolution, which, when considered 
in the light of the small faculties of that time, represent a very substantial 
accomplishment for philanthropy. The fields covered by these professorships 
were all entirely legitimate, in fact essential to the meaning of a college at 
that time. We must not overlook the fact, however, that such a gift was not 
made at Harvard during almost its first century of work, at Yale during its 
first half century, and at Princeton for 20 years. The precedent for founding 
professorships is, of course, very old in Europe, and it is a bit surprising that 
such endowments were begun so late in the Colonies. 

The endowment of the library is scarcely second in importance to that of 
professorship.s. The column representing gifts to the library is only partially 
complete, since so many of the gifts were in books and manuscripts, the value 
of which was only occasionally to be found. The money gifts to libraries 
during this period, including gifts of books when value was stated, were more 
prominent in Yale than in Harvard or Princeton. 

THE FORM OF GIFTS. 

The form of the gift varies somewhat with the college, but in all the larger 
percentage of benefactions for this period are by direct gift instead of by be- 
quest. This is slightly so for Harvard, more so for Princeton, and pronouncedly 
so for Yale. The bequests are more often presented for permanent rather 
than for immediate use, though they have not been segregated here to show 
this. 

IMPORTANCE OF GIFTS FROM ENGLAND. 

Before passing from this period some note should be taken of the important 
part which the mother country played in providing money for the infant col- 
leges in this country. Evidence for this is shown for Harvard only. From 
these figures, however, it is evident that the colonial colleges had many friends 
in the mother country. In fact, without these gifts it is hard to say what 
might have been the fate of colonial Harvard. 

English donations did not come through the avenues of the church and 
religious societies alone, though religious motives are often evident in the 
conditions adhering to the gifts, which were for the aid of library, professor- 
ships, indigent students, etc. 

When war broke down the friendly feeling between the two countries this 
remarkable source of support, valuable in more ways than one, rapidly dried 
up. It is frequently pointed out that the beginning of our national period is 
the ending of English and the beginning of French influence in our higher 



THE COLOlSriAL PEEIOD. 31 

education. So it is, and the ending of the column of figures here referred to 
is a concrete statement of one of the things that is meant hy the ending of the 
English influence. 

When we consider these figures Ln the light of the developments which the 
gifts opened up and the suggestions they brought to our colleges, we have 
more than a word picture of this transition stage in one of our higher institu- 
tions of learning. 

There is one table (Table 6) not yet referred to, dealing with King's Col- 
lege, later Columbia University. The fact that this college received so little 
by way of donations through this period, and a fairly regular amount from the 
Colony, makes it a marked exception. This study is dealing with philanthropy, 
and not with the lack of it. and can only pass this with the suggestion that 
the political life of New York, the religious restrictions attaching to the founda- 
tion of the college, and the general and growing attitude of unfriendliness 
which the people felt toward the English church, and also the English Govern- 
ment, made it more difficult for the people to sympathize with the college and 
treat it as an institution of the people. Without attempting to analyze the 
cause further, it must be referred to here as a marked exception to the rule of 
college building in colonial America ; and in view of the fact that gifts for 
other colleges not infrequently came from people in New York, we can only 
infer that the people themselves were not neglectful of higher education, but 
only of this college. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 

This concludes a description of the educational philanthropy of the colonial 
period. If we were to try to characterize it briefly, we should say that, in the 
light of the economic conditions under which a group of young colonies were 
forming, it was extensive and that it was consciously focused upon a vital 
social problem. We should say that organized religion dominated practically 
all the colleges and a large proportion of the gifts, and often denominationalism 
tried to bend the college in this or that direction, most often with little ill 
effect. We should say that there is good evidence that a very large per- 
centage of the gifts wei'e solicited, usually for a specific purpose, and that 
therefore the conditions of many gifts were actually determined by the col- 
lege authorities themselves, which argues that, after all, the colleges did not 
take form to a very marked extent in terms of the ideas, or v' 'ms either, 
of philanthropists. We should say that the restricted gifts which ..ent to the 
colleges were focused in reasonable proportion upon the fundamental needs of 
the schools, such, for instance, as buildings and grounds (not shown separately 
in the tables), professorships, library, and scholarships. We should say that 
the unrestricted gifts, though in relative amount they varied for the three 
colleges, show a substantial and fairly dependable source of support for each, 
and that the tendency to give for immediate needs was as commendable as it 
was pronounced, when we realize the limited resources of the colleges. 

We should say also that there is evidence in the foundation documents and 
facts pertaining to the actual establishing of the colleges that they were all — 
William and Mary a partial exception — intended from the start to rest upon 
philanthropy, and that the important service of philanthropy was not in its 
money and property gifts alone, but in responsibility borne and service rendered, 
service which meant not only self-sacrifice to a cause but constructJve thinking 
and planning. 

While the colonial governm'ents rendered most impoi'tant service to William 
and Mary, Yale, Harvard, and King's, tho'ugh not to Princeton, Brown, Dart- 
mouth, and Rutgers, it does not appear that in any case the Colony frankly 



32 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 

and fully accepted the responsibility for developing a college. State aid to 
higher education was an acceptetl fact when we think of Massachusetts, Con- 
necticut, Virginia, and New York, but not elsewhere. And in these cases there 
are explanations to be made which do not fully justify our calling any of 
them State institutions in the present accepted sense. 

If there is in this a lesson for modern philanthropy, it is in the persistence 
with which the gifts flowed into the colleges under all circumstances, and the 
sir- ';^ and sane directions under which these gifts did their work. 



Chapter III. 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 



THE PERIOD CHARACTERIZED. 

. The treatment of the years 1776 to 1865 as oue period in the history of 
educational philantliropy is a more or less arbitrary division of time in the 
nature, extent, or methods of giving during tliese yeai's. Yet there are some 
reasons, aside from convenience, for studying these first 90 years of our na- 
tional existence as a single period. 

As was pointed out above, the gifts from England practically ceased at the 
time of the Revolution. The Colonies now became independent States, nnd 
began to face grave social and political responsibilities. Not only were the 
ties with the mother country broken, but new, and for futui'e educational 
development, significant friendships were foi'med in Europe with peoples 
whose educational ideas and institutions were quite unlike those of England. 
In losing this important source of support and influence, in forming new po- 
litical and, as it proved, educational ties in Europe, and in facing her new po- 
litical future, all American institutions enter upon a new period and must 
learn to function in new terms. 

Once a Nation was established, its next great political crisis was in 1861. 
During these years there had been remarkable political and industrial achieve- 
ments, important religious movements, an unheard-of expansion of population 
to the west, and numerous and varied social philosophies had been tried out 
and proved failures in practice. 

All these movements and ideas were more or less reflected in the develop- 
ment of higher education. There had been a decline in interest in education, 
succeeded by an educational revival ; there had been a rapid growth in the 
number of colleges; the Nation and the States had shown an interest in edu- 
cation by the ordinances of 1785 and 1787 and by the actual founding of sev- 
eral State colleges. It is mainly to philanthropy, however, that we must 
look as the chief agency in the development of the American college during 
these first 90 years of our national life. To trace the development of colleges 
through these years, and to describe the part which philanthropy played, is 
the problem of this chapter. 

THE NUMBER OF COLUEGES AND HOW STARTED. 

So far as mere numbers of institutions are concerned, private giving bore the 
larger part of the responsibility for higher learning during the early years. 
The States took no very definite step before 1794, and then in most cases fol- 
lowed rather tardily the lead of private and church-endowed colleges. What 

33 



34 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

the States did, however, was not insignificant. From the foundation of Har- 
vard down they had contrihuted liberally to higher education.^ 

While making an occasional grant upon request from a college is different 
from taking full responsibility, yet we must remember two things: First, 
States were themselves in process of making and had no traditions or prece- 
dents to follow in such matters ; second, private and church-endowed educa- 
tion had centuries of precedent and traditions to point the wny. In other 
words, society had been accustomed to using the church and private agencies 
for handling its college problems, and it is not surprising that it was slow in 
placing that function upon the State. 

During this period, then, one may say that the ideas of State support and 
control of higher education worked themselves out, but that the chief burden 
rested upon private and church donations. 

This is brought out still more clearly in Table 8, which shows the names of 
all the States added to the original 13 during this period, the dates of their 
admission, the name, date, and source of control of the first college established 
in each, the date when the State college or university was founded, and the 
number of colleges which had been founded in each State before the State uni- 
versity was established. 

There are 23 States in this group, and in only 2, Nevada and Florida, was 
the State university the first institution of higher education founded. In three 
others, however, the State and a privately endowed school were started in the 
same year. A comparison of the date columns in the table will show that in 
most cases the State was more than 10 years old before it established a State 
college or university. This was doubtless due in most cases to the fact that 
the State was already well supplied with colleges, as appears from the next to 
the last column in the table. One other set of facts in this table is of interest, 
viz, the control of these colleges. In nearly every case it was the church which 
did the pioneering. Those marked nonsectarian were usually none the less 
religious projects, and some of them so marked were originally denominational. 

Philanthropy, for the most part through the church, is therefore not only re- 
sponsible from the standpoint of mere numbers of colleges throughout this 
period, but also for the actual college pioneering of the evev-broadening frontier 
of the new country. 

1 Williams College (1793) received State grants as follows: 1789, lottery for £1,200, 
building for free school : 1793, £1,200 ; in 1816, three-sixteenths of the Massachusetts 
hank tax for 10 years, equaling $30,000 ; in 1859 a moiety of money from sale of Back 
Bay lands, .$25,000, last grant in 1868, $75,000. Colhy College (1813) (Maine was 
then part of Massachusetts) received State grants as follows from Massachusetts : In 
1813 a township of land, and again in 1815 a township of land ; from Maine, in 1821, 
$1,000 a year for 7 years (to reduce tuition fees) ; 1825, $1,000 annually for three years ; 
1829, $1,000; 1832, $1,000 (one-half to help indigent students); 1861, two half town- 
ships of land on condition that college raise $21,000 by Apr. 1, 1863 ; in 1903, $15,000 
to rebuild (after Are). Amherst College (1821), in 1827, in 1831, in 1832, 1838, and in 
1839, requests refused; in 1847, $25,000 granted. Bowdoin College (1802), in 1794, five 
townships of land ; in 1820, $1,500 plus $1,000 annually " until the legislature shall 
otherwise direct " ; in 1820 also $3,000 annually for seven years, beginning 1824. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PEBTOD, 1776-1865. 



35 



Table 8. — Date of estahlishment and sources of support mid control of the first 
college or university in each of the States admitted before 1865. 





Date 
ad- 
mitted. 


First college. 


Control. 


State 
univer- 
sity 
found- 
ed. 


Colleges 
found- 


States. 


Name. 


Date 
estab- 
Ushed. 


ed 
before 

State 
univer- 
sity. 


Kentucky 


1792 
1791 
1796 
1802 
1812 
1816 
1817 
1818 
1819 
1820 
1821 
1836 
1837 
1845 
1846 
1845 
1848 

1850 

1858 
1859 
1861 
1863 
1864 


Transylvania University 

Middlebury College 


1798 
1800 
1794 
1800 
1832 
1803 
1826 
1827 
1830 
1802 
1818 
1872 
1833 


Nonsectarian 

do 


1865 
1800 
1794 
1808 
1860 
1824 
1848 
1868 
1831 
1868 
1847 
1872 
1841 
1887 
1869 
1876 
1848 

1 1869 

1869 
1870 
1863 
1868 
1886 


11 









Tusculmn College 


do 





Ohio 


Marietta College 


do 


1 




Jefferson College 


Roman Catholic. . . 

Nonsectarian 

Baptist 


4 


Indiana 


Vincennes University 


1 




2 




Shurtleff College 


do 


21 




Spring Hill College 


Roman Catholic... 

Nonsectarian 

Roman Catholic... 

Presbyterian 

Baptist 


1 


Maine. . ... 


Bowdoin College 


2 




St. Louis University 


4 




Arkansas College 





Michigan. . . 


Kalamazoo College 


1 


Florida 









Iowa 


Iowa Wesleyan College 

Baylor University 


1842 
1845 
1846 
1851 
1851 
1854 
1854 
1848 
1841 


Methodist 


13 


Texas 


Baptist 


6 






Presbyterian 


2 




/College of the Pacific 




California 


\University of Santa Clara 


Roman Catholic... 
Methodist 


5 




4 




Pacific University 


Congregational 

Roman Catholic... 
Disciples 


5 




St. Mary's College 


4 


West Virginia. . 


Bethany College 


1 





















THE BEGINNINGS. 

During the Revolution higher education received a brief setback, but soon 
showed a tendency to keep pace with the growth of the population. The story 
of the beginnings of practically all the colleges founded during this period is 
one of penury. They were not launched with large foundation gifts or grants, 
such as were common at the close of the century, but most often by small gifts 
collected by subscription, as the following illustrations plainly show : 

Williams College, founded in 1793, grew out of a free school established in 
1755 by a bequest from Col. Ephraim Williams.^ 

Bowdoin College, founded in 1794, received its first important gift of $1,000 
and 1,000 acres of land, worth 2 shillings an acre, from Mr. Bowdoin. 

Middlebury College, founded in 1800, started with $4,000, made up of small 
donations from the citizens of the town of Middlebury. 

Amherst College, founded in 1821, began as an academy started by a sub- 
scription in 1812 and as a college with a subscription of $52,244, known as the 
charity fund. 

Oberlin College, founded in 1833 as one of the manual-labor projects, started 
with a gift of 500 acres of land, worth about $1.50 per acre, supplemented by 
the usual subscription plan. 

Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, founded in 1836, started on small 
subscriptions, 1,800 of which amounted to $27,000. 

Marietta College, founded in 1835, received her first funds of $8,000 by sub- 
scriptions and erected her second building on funds raised by subscriptions at 
$2 per subscriber. 



2 This bequest could not have been large, for in 1789, upon i-equest, the State granted 
its trustees a right to raise £1,200 by lottery, the proceeds to be used to erect a building 
for the free school. 



36 



PHILANTHROPY llST AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



A very large number of these colleges began as academies. The idea of a 
college as au academy grown large seems to have been an accepted principle 
in philanthropic and State education alike.* 

Of the 14 colleges founded between the close of the Revolution and the open- 
ing of the nineteenth century, Williams, Hampden-Sidney, Union, Hamilton, 
Washington and Jefferson, and Washington and Lee, all began as academies or 
schools of that rank, with practically no funds. The story of this period is 
therefore a story of simple pioneering, and that on a small scale. 

HOW THE WORK WAS ACCOMPLISHED. 

From the above it is clear that higher education was to be largely supported 
and directed by the church. The college was a definite part of the plan to 
propagate the Christian religion, and early in the new century the cry for an 
educated ministry was voiced by almost every religious publication. Response 
to this need in the form of church boards of education will be discussed later. 
It must be pointed out here, however, that between the years 1830 and 1850 
the number of theological seminaries increased from 21 to 38. 

This religious work in founding colleges is often denominational, as may be 
seen from the fifth column in Table 8. The older colleges in the East sent 
missionaries into the new country across the mountains to meet the " spiritual 
necessities of the western country," * as an officer of one of the earliest colleges 
declares. Table 9 shows that all but 33 of the colleges of this period were 
established by philanthropy, 167 of the 271 being distinctly denominational 
projects and 71 others being religious but nonsectarian. 

Table 9.- — Number of colleges, universities, and technical schools established 
during the three periods and nurnber under the various types of control. 





Sectarian. 


Non- 
secta- 
rian, 
but 
reli- 
gious. 


Total 
reli- 
gious. 




Periods. 


Method- 
ist. 


Roman 

Catho- 

hc. 


Bap- 
tist. 


Pres- 
hyte- 
rian. 


Others. 


Total. 


State. 


Colonial period 1635-1776 






1 

27 
21 








7 
71 
68 


8 
238 
246 


1 


Eariy national period, 1776^ 
1865 


45 
42 


31 
27 


27 
35 


37 
53 


167 

178 


33 


Later national period, 1865- 
1915 


62 







Thus the work of philanthropy through this period is to remain where it was 
in colonial times — in the hands of the church. There is, then, nothing specially 
new by way of general motive or machinery for putting that motive to work. 
Religion tries to meet its problems by training for religious and political leader- 
ship. It does this in the hand-to-mouth fashion to which it has long been 
accustomed. Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Hamilton, and Oberlin were 



* The laws of Maryland, Ch. VIII, 1782, concerning "An act for founding a college at 
Chestertown," says : " Whereas former legislatures of this State have, according to their 
best abilities, laid a considerable foundation in this good work, in sundry laws for the 
establishment and encouragement of county schools, for the study of Latin, Greek, writ- 
ing, and the like, intending, as their future circumstances might permit, to engraft or 
raise on the foundation of such schools more extensive seminaries of learning by erect- 
ing one or more colleges, or places of universal study, not only in the learned languages, 
but in philosophy, divinity, law, physic, and other useful and ornamental arts and 
sciences," etc. 

* Quarterly Registei', Vol. V, p. 331. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PEEIOD, 1776-1865. 37 

founded very much as were Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. The problems they 
hoped to sohe were much the same, and the methods of carrying on their work 
were practically the same, with the exception that early in the new century 
the churches began to develop boards of education through which a new type 
of philanthropy, aimed directly at the preparation of a trained ministry, was 
administered. 

Further detailed study of the development of philanthropy in the older founda- 
tions, in typical foundations of this period, and of church boards of education 
should bring to light any new ideas or methods of work which the philanthropy 
-^f this period has to offer. 

PHILANTHROPY IN THE OLDER COLLEGES. 
1. A PERIOD OF SMALL GIFTS, SMALL INCOME, AND SMALL ENDOWMENT. 

To follow out the developments which took place in the older foundations 
we have to refer again to Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, where the data discussed in 
chapter 3 are carried forward. 

These colleges passed through the stormy period of the Revolution, in which 
they all suffered more or less. Yet they survived, and an examination of the 
total columns in these tables seems to indicate that the spirit of philanthropy 
was kept alive through it all. The total gifts to Harvard during the years 
1771-1775 were relatively large, though they dropped during the decade follow- 
ing. Yale and Princeton, on the other hand, received but little by way of 
gifts during this period, but came well up to their average during the decade 
following, while King's College appears not to have been affected seriously. 

Aside from a few large gifts just before the Civil War, this was a period 
of small gifts for these old colleges. Harvard depended upon small subscrip- 
tions to erect Divinity Hall in 1826, to establish a professorship of natural 
history in 1805, and a professorship of geology in 1820. More than three- 
fourths of Yale's endowment fund of $100,000 was raised in 1831 and 1832 by 
Wyllis Warner in a similar way.° 

It was also a time when permanent endowments were small, and when the 
colleges were often struggling with heavy deficits. Yale's income from in- 
vested funds in 1831 amounted to but $2,300, while the income from tuition 
was too small to cover the necessary expenditures of $15,474.' In appealing 
to the legislature for aid in 1822, Yale declared her debt to be $11,000, with 
permanent productive funds of but $20,000. In 1825 Harvard's expenditures 
exceeded her income by more than $4,000, while as late as 1840 her productive 
funds amounted to only about $156,126.' Rhode Island College changed her 
name to Brown University in 1804 for a gift of $5,000. 

An examination of the total columns in these four tables shows that it was 
not only a period of small gifts but also one of small total income. With the 
funds that were at the disposal of Yale in 1800, it is not surprising that the 
ambition of the college to become a university could be satisfied with the 
establishment of schools of law, medicine, and theology in terms of a single 
professorship for each of those fields. 

5 Baldwin, reissue of "Annals of Yale," appendix, presents list of subscribers. 

Steiner, B. C. Hist, of Educ. in Conn., p. 152, Washington, D. C, 1893. 

' Quincy, " History of Harvard College," II, 360, makes the former of these statements 
on authority of the treasurer's report of that year. The second is from the treasurer's 
report of 1840, ibid., appendix No. LX. 



38 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

2. EXPANSION OF THE COLLEGE AND INCREASE OF CONDITIONAL GIFTS. 

Our concern here is not with the mere size of the gift, however, but par- 
ticularly with the conditions upon which the gift is received. As a college 
expands from one to many Ijuildings, from a classical to a scientific program, 
fx'oni one to many instructors — in other words, from a traditional college to a 
university — its needs tend to become more and more diverse, and so, specific, 
as opposed to general. The donor who in the old day saw only the college 
now sees laboi'atories, various kinds of professorships, buildings, libraries, 
departments of this and that, etc., and if not consulted about his gift, is less 
likely to give to the " college," since the college has now become a vague and 
indefinite thing. 

Amid such developments we should expect gifts to be made less frequently 
to the general funds of the institution, and more often to a single specified part 
of it. An examination of columns four and five of our tables shows that this 
was roughly the tendency in all cases. The per cent given to " general fund," 
with some exceptions, gradually grows smaller and the per cent to " specified 
purposes " larger. 

The question arises as to whether the new departures were more often initi- 
ated by the president or board of trustees or by some donor who conceived the 
idea and proposed its adoption by offering to endow it. This can not be 
answered fully for the reason that all the facts concerning the naming of con- 
ditions upon which a gift is offered can not now be obtained. It appears that 
most of the gifts of this period were conditional. While it is true that the new 
professorships, by way of which new departments and schools were usually 
opened up, are named in memory of some special donor,^ yet we can not be sure 
that growth in these terms was not largely directed by the college. 

3. HOW THE GIFTS WERE CONDITIONED. 

A second question of interest about a gift is whether it is to be available 
for immediate use or to become a part of the productive funds of the college. 
During colonial times, as was pointed out above, gifts were most generally for 
immediate use. That is slightly less true for this period, as may be seen from 
a study of columns six and seven of the table. It is decidedly less true for 
Harvard, whose " permanent endowment " funds show a steady growth all 
through the period. 

A further study of these tables will show the conditions under which the 
early narrow streams of beneficence flowing into these colleges gradually 
widened during these 90 years. The library column would be enlarged if all 
of the gifts of books could have been included. It appears that the library 
i-eceived proportionately less at Yale through this period than it had been re- 
ceiving, that no money gifts went to the libraries at Columbia and at Princeton, 
while at Harvard such gifts increased slightly and became more constant. 

The first professorship ever founded in this country was that of divinity at 
Harvard, endowed by Thomas HoUis in 1721. There were five others founded 
in Harvard, Yale, and Princeton during the colonial period, after which almost 
a constant stream of gifts at Harvard and Princeton are for tjiis purpose. At 
Yale no gifts for this purpose are recorded from 1760 to 1820. After this date, 
however, there is a fairly regular and substantial tendency to endow instruc- 
tion. Columbia has had much less of this kind of assistance, there having been 
but one such large gift ($20,000 in 1843) previous to the year 1896. The de- 

8 Of the 3.5 professorships and lectureships established at Harvard by 1865, 26 were 
named for some benefactor of the college. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 



39 



velopinents in this partioular line of giving coincide roughly with the period 
of expansion of the little traditional college into a university. 

Keference to the " pious and indigent students " column in these tables shows 
that at Harvard the gifts to this cause are irregular and relatively less than 
in the earlier years; at Princeton they become more regular and relatively 
larger. At Yale, where no such gifts appear before 1821, the response is irregu- 
lar and slight. At Columbia practically no gifts are for the " poor and pious." 

Assistance to students direct comes through another channel (see scholar- 
ship and fellowship columns of the tables), in which poverty and piety play no 
part. It has long been the custom to give money to pay the tuition of the 
brightest student, as judged by competitive examination, and from our tables 
this continues to be supported. Before 1835 Harvard and Princeton show much 
more interest in the poor and pious than in this group. Yale tends to favor 
the competitive scholarship idea, and at Columbia, where the poor and pious 
receive little or no attention, a large and constant proportion of gifts go to 
scholarships and fellowships. 

One other way of helping the student directly is by use of prizes. Account 
was kept of such gifts, but they proved to be irregular in all cases and of no 
great consequence, so they do not appear in the tables. By adding together 
the two items " scholarships " and " pious and indigent students " in the tables 
we see that there is much educational philanthrophy which chooses to go di- 
rectly to the student rather than indirectly through provision of instructors, 
library, laboratory, buildings, etc. It is not the large educational enterprise in 
which such donors are interested; it is an individual, and philanthropy is with 
them a personal matter, that is, true charity. 

4. L-A.EGE GIFTS OF THE PERIOD. 

There were a few large gifts received during this period. Leaving out the 
funds raised by subscription, the important gifts to three of the old colonial 
colleges during this period are recorded in Table 10, which shows their form, 
date, amount, and purpose. 



Table 10. 



-Amounts and conditions of the large gifts to Harvard, Yale, and 
ColumMa from 1776 to 1865. 



College. 


Date. 


Form of 
dona- 
tion. 


Amount. 


Conditions controlling gift. 


Harvard 

Harvard 

Harvard 

Harvard 

Harvard 

Yale 


1814 
1816 

1845 

1848 
1854 
1825 
1860 
1863 
1863 
1864 
186-4-1867 
1865 
1843 


Gift 

Bequest... 

...do 

...do 

...do 

Gift 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

...do 

Bequest... 


$20, 000 
20,000 

100,000 

50,000 
50,000 
25,000 
50, 000 
40,000 
50, 000 
175, 000 
60,000 
30,000 
20,000 


To found professorship of Greek. 

To found professorship of French, Spanish 

tore. 
Unrestricted (to advance virtue, science, 

ture.) 
Education of yotmg men of rare powers. 
To erect a chapel. 
"On specified conditions." 
To endow Sheffield Scientific School. 
To endow professorship of divinity. 
To endow professorship of Sanscrit. 
Building for art school. 
Building for a dormitory. 
For a college chapel. 
To endow a professorship. 


and litera- 
and Utera- 


Yale . . 




Yale 




Yale 




Yale 




Yale 




Yale 




Columbia 





It would certainly be difficult to question the conditions placed upon these 
gifts. There are 13 in all, 5 for the founding of professorships, 4 for buildings, 
1 for endowment of a scientific school. 1 for scholarships, 1 " on specified con- 
ditions " which are not known, and 1 unrestricted. 



40 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER E-DUCATION. 

These gifts represent departures but not wide departures from the ordinary 
college. The French influence is seen in the establishment of a French and 
Spanish professorship, the first of its kind in this country.® The influence of 
the scientific movement also is shown by the professorships of natural history 
and mineralogy and geology which were established in 1805 and 1820. 

It is noteworthy that but one of these gifts is to go to the student direct. 
The conditions of the gift provide that young men of rare powers in any depart- 
ment of knowledge may be helped, not only after they enter Harvard but even 
before, wherever they may be found. 

Thus it appears that the large gifts of this period provided only for normal 
expansion of the colleges, and probably did not anticipate, except in point of 
time, the growth that would have come had these colleges been provided with 
unconditional instead of conditional gifts. 

Reference to the dates will show how few were the gifts of this size previous 
to the middle of the nineteenth century. As to form, those to Harvard and 
Columbia are mostly by bequest, while those to Yale are by gift direct. 

5. FORM OF THE GIFTS. 

Turning again to the last two columns of Tables 3 to 6 for a study of the 
form of the benefactions, we find that at Harvard there is a slight increase 
in the " bequests " column during this period, but that at Yale, Princeton, and 
Columbia the burden of the income is by direct gift. 

In these tables, then, which are doubtless typical for all the older colleges, 
the developments show that the total gifts to the colleges do not increase much 
before the second quarter of the new century. By that time income from the 
State had grown very irregular or stopped entirely. There was a tendency 
to change from giving " to the college " to giving to some special feature of 
the college. Permanent endowment received more attention than before and 
there was a falling off of interest in the " pious and indigent," except at 
Princeton. There was an increased " interest in scholarships and fellowships 
and a rapidly growing interest in professorships ; and gifts rather than be- 
quests. Harvard excepted, remained the favorite form of benefactions. 

PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES FOUNDED LATER. 

As shown already, the increase in the number of colleges kept pace with the 
development of the country, the church continuing as chief sponsor for the pro- 
motion of higher education. A large percentage of the colleges were definitely 
denominational projects, aimed at the development of a trained ministry and 
the spread of religious and classical knowledge among laymen. They were 
often the outgrowth of academies, many of which were started on very small 
funds obtained by subscription (as Middlebury College from an academy with 
funds amounting to $4,000). 

Being in many cases the offspring of the older colleges, developed largely 
by and for the people of the East who had moved westward, promoted by the 
same ministry as that which had founded and nourished the colonial colleges," 

» Bush, ibid., p. 85, quotes this statement from President Eliot. 

"According to tenth annual report of directors of the American College and Educa- 
tion Society a substantial stream of gifts was constantly flowing from eastern donors to 
the struggling young colleges of the West. The following figures show the amounts of 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1716-1865. 



41 



under very similar frontier and financial conditions we expect the colleges, 
as well as the nature and methods of their support and control, to resemble 
those of the older colleges in the Bast. In general, in fact one could almost 
say in detail, this resembhince did exist. 

Amherst College is typical for the period. In Table 11 is shown a distribu- 
tion of its gifts from its origin in 1821 to 1S90. The college originated as 
Amherst Academy, a subscription fund for which was started in 1812. The 
school opened in 1814 and by 1818 was beginning the collection of funds for the 
future college. Amherst is one of the nine New England colleges founded 
during this period and began its career both as an academy and as a college 
on money collected by subscription. Its first funds, $51,404, were collected to 
found a " Charity Institution," and the great care with which the conditions 
controlling the administration of this fund are set forth" impresses one with 
the missionary zeal of the founders. Article three of this document provides 
that five-sixths of the interest of the fund shall be forever appropriated to the 
classical education in the institution of indigent pious young men for the 
ministry, and the other sixth shall be added to the principal for its perpetual 
increase, while the principal shall be secured intact and perpetually aug- 
menting.^ Here, in the conditions controlling this foundation gift, is evidence 
of the religious aim of the college and of its acceptance of the policy of subsi- 
dizing young men who qualify as " indigent, pious, and desirous of entering 
the ministry." While not the same in detail, this sounds much like the begin- 
ning of a colonial college. 

For a number of years Amherst's history has much to say about poverty, but 
a comparison of the total benefactions to Amherst in her early years with those 
for Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in Tables 3, 4, and 5 shows that Amherst 
fared somewhat better in her infancy than did these older colleges, even 
allowing for differences in money values. In the face of her fairly real com- 
petition for funds with Harvard, Yale, and Williams, on the average her 
income compares favorably with that of Princeton during the years 1821-1830, 
and then rapidly surpasses Princeton, Harvard, and Yale for a number of years. 



these gifts by years from 1844 to 1884. This is mostly the work of the CoBgregational 
Church. If the many other church societies did as well, then this represents an im- 
portant source of support for western colleges. 



1844 $15, 588 

1845 9, 500 

1846 14, 000 

1847 12. 555 

1848 10, 000 

1849 34, 300 

1850 41, 500 

1851 20, 500 

1852 19, 000 

1853 13, 496 



1854 ?11, 250 

1855 15, 077 

1856 18, 887 

1857 12, 131 

1858 8, 428 

1859 10, 159 

1860 18, 291 

1861-62__. 10, 298 

1863 14, 689 

1864 56, 320 



1865 


$14, 710 


1875 


$62. 375 


1866 


23, 588 


1876 


38, 691 


1867 


35, 246 


1877 


.34, 516 


1868 


51, 319 


1878 


42, 221 


1869 


19, 064 


1879 


37, 994 


1870 


65, 695 


1880 


38, 983 


1871 


72, 425 


1881 


229, 851 


1872 


51, 022 


1882 


64, 228 


1873 


73, 881 


1883 


135, 344 


1874 


52, 979 


1884 


88, 137 



These amounts were contributed to the following institutions : 



Western Reserve College, Ohio. 
Marietta College, Ohio. 
Lane Theological Seminary, Ohio. 
Wittenberg College, Ohio. 
Heidelberg College, Ohio. 
Oberlin College, Ohio. 
Wilberforce University, Ohio. 
Illinois College, Illinois. 
Rnox College, Illinois. 
Wabash College, Indiana. 
BeJolt College, Wisconsin. 
Ripon College, Wisconsin. 
Washburn College, Kansas. 



Iowa College, Iowa. 

YellOAV Springs College, Iowa. 

German Evangelical College, Missouri. 

Webster College, Missouri. 

Thayer College, Missouri. 

Drury College, Missouri. 

Pacific University, Oregon. 

College of St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Carleton College, Minnesota. 

College of California, California. 

Pacific Theological Seminary, California. 

Olivet College, Michigan. 

Berea College, Kentucky. 



" See W. S. Tyler, "A History of Amherst College," p. 7 ff., for a fall statement of the 
14 articles controlling the fund. 

"The report of the treasurer of Amherst College for 1912 shows this fund to be 
$95,098.50. 



42 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 11. — Donations and grants to Amherst College, 1821-1890 — Distribution 

of gifts hy individuals.^ 























Per cent 


g 










Per cent of total gifts by individuals for— 




in form 






















of— 


ft 






.2 


















•c 




i 


3 




s 




i 


-% 




^ m 






■a 

a 








Dates. 


C8 
.Q 

d 

03 


■■B 

X! 


03 
O 

a 


ft 


oj 

3 
2 




03 M 
W ft 

Si 


M 

o 

.s 
2 


'1 


03 








1 
3 

OJ 


X! 

1 
1 




o 


O 


O 


cc 


PL| 


a, 


£ 


Ph 


Pm 


3 


Ph 


P5 


O 


pq 


o 


1819 2 




2 $51,404 
34,000 
54,000 
100, 000 
108,000 


"99." 6 


100 
100 

1 

36 
100 


"ioo 

100 
64 
31 


100 






100 








100 
88 

100 
89 

100 


12" 

..... 


100 


1821-1830 












100 


88 


1831-1839 












6.5 


1.5 


99 


1840-1845 




36 
69 




15 
.57 




100 


1845-1854 


$25,000 




14 






13 


1855-1860 




67,692 
260,000 


"i.h 


64 
98.5 


96 

77 


4 
23 


4 






3 
3 






70 
98.5 


30 
1.5 


16 


1861-1865 


27,500 


23 




1 


74 




1866-1870 




156,976 
257,000 
881,895 


'""i.'7 


100 
100 
83 


100 
33 
41 










4 






4 

100 

78 


96 




1871-1875 




67 
59 


52 

7 


9 
22 




5 
0.5 


"ii 




1876-1890 






8 


22 


4 









1 Sources from which these data were taken: W. S. Tyler, "A History of Amherst College;" Geo. Gary 
Bush, Hist, of Higher Educa. in Mass. 

2 Known as the charity fund. One-sixth of income to be added to principal annually. In his 1912 re- 
port the coUege treasurer shows this fund to be $95,098.50. 

To show how completely acceptable this new college was to the people, 
however narrow and local its constituency, we need only to look at the attend- 
ance and size of the teaching staff from the beginning to 1894. While there 
was a serious drop in attendance about 1840 to 1850, there was a steady rise. 
The tuition charges for these years were as follows : 



1821_1833___ $30_$33 

1883-1834 27 

1836-1847 33 

1834-1836 30 



1847-1855 ?30 

1855-1864 36 

1864-1868 45 

1868-1871 75 



1871-1876 $90 

187.5-1886 100 

1886 100 



It is evident that the income from tuition was not great, and since in the 
earlier years of the college nothing was received from the State, practically 
the whole burden was carried by philanthropy. How this was done is of some 
interest. 

Table 11 gives a fair description, one striking feature of which is the final 
column, which shows what per cent of all gifts were obtained by the sub- 
scription method. Aside from this the table offers little that is different from 
what we have seen in the older colleges for this period. Most of the gifts 
have been conditional, but when we look at the following columns in the table 
and see that professorships, library, and buildings have fared so well, it 
appears that the conditions placed upon the gifts were expressions of real 
needs. In the early years, as in the older colleges, most of the gifts were 
available for immediate use, with a slight tendency toward permanent endow- 
ments later. 

Aside from the charity subscription at the beginning, which is a scholar- 
ship fund for ministerial students, no scholarships were founded till 1857, 
when about 50 were established. But little money for prizes was received dur- 
ing this period ; so that the amount of gifts direct to students, aside from the 
foundation subscription fund, is small in comparison with that given to the 
library or for professorships or for buildings. 

Professorships fared about as well as they did in the older colleges, during 
these same years, while indigence is not subsidized after the iliitial gift. As 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PEEIOD, 1776-1865. 



43 



at Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, most of the benefactions are by gift rather 
than by bequest. 

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION OF THIS PERIOD. 

In 1912-13 there were 179 theological schools reporting to the United States 
Commissioner of Education, 70 of which were founded during this period. 
These schools show permanent endowment funds of nearly $40,000,000, and 
since they are all the work of philanthropy and have from the start constituted 
a prominent feature of higher education in this country some consideration of 
the methods of philanthropy in their development is pertinent to this study. 

The first separately organized school of this type founded in the United 
States was the Andover Theological Seminary, established in ISO'S. The 
lengthy creed of this school was carefully prepared by the two wings of 
Calvinists and has been publicly read and subscribed to by each professor on 
his inauguration and before the trustees every fifth year since the founda- 
tion." This is how strictly denominational the school has been. 

In 1913 the school reported a plant worth $300,000 and nearly three-quarters 
of a million dollars in permanent endowment funds." It received initial gifts 
of buildings and .$60,000, and before the close of this period possessed five 
endowed professorships. 

Table 12. — Gifts to permanent funds of Andover Theological Seminary, 1S07 

to 1890} 



Dates. 



Total 
amount. 



General 
fund. 



Profes- 
sorships . 



Library. 



Scholar- 
ships. 



1807-1810 
1811-1815 
1816-1820 
1831-1835 
1841-1845 
1856-1860 
1866-1870 
1871-1875 
1876-1880 
1881-1885 
1886-1890 



S75,000 
79,000 
25,000 
15,000 
80,000 
53,000 

119,000 
95,000 

240,000 
14,000 

315,000 



S30,000 



$45,000 
79,000 
25,000 
15,000 



25,000 

164,000 

43,000 

50,000 



S25,000 



20,000 
'28,066' 



$97,000 



1 Data for this table obtained from Geo. Gary Bush's Hist, of Higher Ed. in Mass., 1891. 

2 Of this amount, $10,000 was for the establishment of a lectureship. 

Table 12 shows the distribution of the permanent funds of the institution. 
From this table it will be seen that no great part of its gifts for permanent 
endowment have gone to the general fund, that nothing has gone to scholar- 
ships or to indigent and pious students or to prizes, but that many gifts have 
gone to endow professorships. Only $2S,000 of these amounts seems to have 
been received by way of small subscriptions. 

The Bangor Theological Seminary was established in 1814 by the Society 
for Promoting Theological Education. This was one of the earliest education 
societies in America. Its purpose was — 

raising a fund to assist those well-disposed young men that are desirous of en- 
tering in the work of the gospel ministry, but by deficiency of pecuniary re- 
sources are unal)]e to prosecute a course of regular studies necessary to qualify 
them for a station so important and useful.^" " The Maine Charity School," 
as it was then called, was established for the purpose of promoting religion, 
morality, etc. Only native-born citizens could ever become trustees. 

" Bush, p. 240. 

" Rep. U. S. Com. of Edu., 1913, p. 325. 

^ Hall : Higher Educ. in Maine, p. 35. 

111512°— 22 4 



44 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

In the early days the school had no endowment and marks its first important 
gift as $300. In 1835 a $100,000 endowment fund was started, but because 
of the financial crisis of -that time only about one-third of this amount was 
raised. Another effort was made in 1849, when $34,000 was raised for the 
endowment of two professorships. Since that date the school has prospered. 
In 1913 a permanent endowment of $310,000 was reported. 

These are but samples to show how philanthropy, entirely unaided by the 
State, took care of education for this particular profession. 

OTHER LINES OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING. 

What philanthrophy has not done is of some interest here, since we are 
concerned with its relation to the development of all higher education. 

Theology has been kept strictly apart from politics in this country, and 
aside from a few early gifts from the State, this profession has been built 
up entirely by philanthrophy. Its institutional growth was in the beginning 
in connection witli colleges of liberal training, but toward the close of the 
eighteenth century began to develop as separate schools. This was partly in 
fear of the rather unorthodox trend in the colleges and partly in order to 
better the instruction, since the demand for a better-trained ministry appears 
to have been strong. Denominationalism was also a factor in the case of 
churches which had not established colleges of their own. 

While higher education for the ministry has been handled entirely by 
philanthropy, this has not been true of either law or medicine. A few pro- 
fessorships of law^" and physic were established in the universities before the 
end of the colonial period, but appear to have been too academic and indirect 
to satisfy the rather utilitarian motives of these two professions. In the 
beginning, in fact all through this period, and even later, a few busy doctors 
taught medicine, and law was learned almost wholly by apprenticeship 
despite the rapidly increasing importance of the legal profession after the 
Revolution." 

EDUCATION OF WOMEN. 

Another important educational movement in the history of higher education 
which originates during this period, and furnishes new motives to philan- 
thropy, is that of colleges for women. The movement takes its rise along 
Avith .Taclcsonian democracy, antislavery agitation, the great westward move- 
ment, and early womeo's rights agitation, and very quickly takes permanent 
form in the hands of philanthropy, first through the pioneer work of Mrs. 
Emma Willard in the founding of the Troy Female Seminary in 1820 and 
the later work of Miss Mary Lyon in connection v/ith the founding of Mount 
Holyoke Seminary and College in 1836. 

After an interesting educational career, Mrs. Willard opened the Troy 
Female Seminary in 1821. An initial fund of $4,000 was raised by the city 
of Troy by taxation and promptly supplemented by gifts. According to the 
curriculum offered," it is fair to look upon this as a genuine and successful 
attempt at higher education for women, even though the school later passed 
out of existence. 

In every sense this was a philanthropic enterprise. It succeeded as such 
for some 70 years, during which time it wielded a very wide influence and 



i« Professorships of law were established at William and Mai-y in 1799; at the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania in 1790 ; at Columbia in 1793 ; at Yale in 1801 ; at Dartmouth In 
1808 ; and at Harvard in 1815. 

^■^ See Professional Distribution of College and University Graduates, by Bailey B. Bur- 
ritt, U. S. Bu. of Ed. Bui., 1912, No. 19. 

w See U. S. Com. of Ed. Rep., 1895-96, Vol. I, pp. 240-257. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 45 

stood as one of the important foundation stones which Mrs. Willard laid for 
the higher education of women in this country. 

Miss Lyon, like Mrs. Willard, proceeded on the assumption that it was 
Quite as important to enlist the interest and sympathy of the great mass of 
people as it was to secure funds. She planned, therefore, to raise $30,000 by 
small subscriptions to start Mount Holyoke Seminary and College. When one 
reads that one of the record books of subscriptions contained the names of 
more than 1,800 subscribers from 90 places, promising a total of $27,000, in 
sums varying from 6 cents to $1,000," and then reads that it was Miss Lyon's 
wish to " put within the reach of students of moderate means such opportunities 
that none can find better * * * a permanent institution consecrated to 
the work of training young women to the greatest usefulness," and one " de- 
signed to be furnished with every advantage that the state of education in 
this country will allow,^" he realizes that, while philanthropy is not finding 
new methods, it is finding a new motive in an institution exclusively for the 
higher education of women. 

As is well known, the new idea met with opposition but, as usual, it w-is 
finally proved that philanthropy can be depended upon to meet any important 
social need as soon as that need differentiates itself from mere vague unrest. 

This movement for the education of women was less than 30 years old when 
the founder of Vassar College laid down funds amounting to nearly $800,000 
for a similar institution, so much in demand as to attract nearly 350 students 
in its first year. Thus in a short time philanthropy's experiment had succeeded 
far beyond expectations. 

PHILANTHROPY AND THE MANUAL-LABOR COLLEGES. 

The manual-labor movement in American secondary and higher education 
came to this country from Europe, where for nearly the first half of the nine- 
teenth century Fellenberg and his successors experimented with the idea of 
combining remunerative work with school training. Students from many 
countries visited the Fellenberg institution, and the movement spread rapidly, 
the labor features finding a fertile field in both colleges and secondary schools 
in this country. In Connecticut as early as 1819 such a school was established, 
and in 1831 the manual labor society for promoting manual labor in literary 
institutions was organized. The secretary of this society made an extended 
tour of the West and Southwest, visiting the manual labor schools, but seems 
to have left no statistical evidence of his study. 

Where the idea was introduced here the labor feature was used as an appeal 
to the philanthropist for support and to the parent to send his son to college, 
where, as a Wesleyan University resolution of August 27, 1833, says, " the 
physical as well as the intellectual and moral education will be attended to." 

It is only necessary to state that this idea took form in Maine Wesleyan 
Seminary in 1825, in Andover Theological Seminary in 1826, in Colby College 
in 1827, in Western Reserve University in 1830, in Wesleyan University in 
1833, in Hartford Theological Seminary in 1834, and in Oberlin from its origin 
in 1833, to show something of the type of colleges which introduced it and the 
extent of its adoption. It was an expression of a new social as well as educa- 

19 Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, by Mrs. Sarah D. (Locke) Stowe, U. S. Bu. of 
Ed. Circ. No. 6, 1891, Ch. XXII. 

»" " Mount Holyoke College — the Seventy-fifth Anniversary," p. 13. 



46 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

tional philosophy, and seems to have made its appeal for benefactions from 
the social, moral, religious, educational, and economic points of view. 

A more intimate study of the benefactions to Oberlin, a college founded after 
the movement had become popular and one vphich fairly hewed its way into 
the world on the manual-labor basis, should give us a fair picture of this type 
of educational philanthropy. 

Mr. Leonard," quoting from Oberlin's first annual report, 1834, says: "The 
manual labor department is indispensable to complete education " and, " in a 
word, it meets the wants of a man as a compound being and prevents common 
and amazing waste of money, time, health, and life." He then goes on to ex- 
plain the nature and extent of the department and how well it is working. In 
1837 " nearly all the young ladies and a majority of the young gentlemen have 
paid their board by manual labor." This report adds that while the school's 
funds were as they found them at that time, no pledge could be made that 
labor would be furnished. From then on the failure of the scheme was only 
a matter of time, and in 1849 the trustees realized that it was not paying and 
that some legal means of ending the experiment must be found. 

It was at this point that the " dead hand " appeared. The 500 acres of land 
had been donated to a manual labor school. In 1852 legal authority was found 
for leasing the ground, the lessee covenanting " yearly, during said term, to 
employ students of said college in some department of manual labor (when 
applied for) and pay them for their labor the current market price, to an 
amount each year of at least $2 for each acre of land hereby demised." 22 
Further on in the lease it is agreed that in case any part of the lease is ad- 
judged to be beyond the powers of the Oberlin trustees, the lease becomes void. 
The expression " manual labor " disappeared from the catalogue after 1867-68, 
and m place of it reference is made to " facilities for self-Support." 

Thus within 2 years from the beginning the college had failed to meet the full 
demand for labor, and within 20 years the labor scheme had disappeared in 
failure. During these 20 years, however, Oberlin had become a fairly well- 
established college, though these had been years of extreme poverty with much 
debt. 

The school's first real funds, some $15,000, were received during the first 
year, largely upon solicitation in payment for scholarships.'^ The business 
side of the undertaking soon used this money, and the college went begging 
to New Tork, where it received a guarantee for full endowment of eight pro- 
fessorships. An unalterable condition of this gift, which was never paid, was 
that Negroes should be given equal privilege with white students in the school. 

In this gift we have an illustration of how the policy of a college respect- 
ing a very important social and political issue was to be absolutely settled by 
philanthropy, and settled contrary to the wishes of nearly half the trustees 
of the college. A second effect of this intended gift was the abolition of all 
tuition charges, a move which cost the college dearly. 

Within a few years the college was some $40,000 in debt. In 1837 an effort 
to raise a $100,000 endowment realized only about $6,000.^ Finally, in 1839, 



31 The Story of Oberlin, by Delavan L. Leonard, p. 224 ff. 

22 Leonard, ibid., p. 228. 

2» These perpetual scholarships cost $150 each and paid no tuition, merely giving the 
holder the privilege of entering the school and using the labor appliances to earn his way. 
They were thus a further pledge that the labor feature would be perpetuated. 

2* Commons : Hist, of Higher Educ. in Ohio. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1*776-1865. 47 

agents were sent to England to make an appeal for help with which to pay the 
debts of the college."' This brought $30,000 and valuable collections of books, 
and deserves notice here because the agents carried with them to England 
letters from antislavery leaders in America through which they presented 
their case to antislavery sympathizers in England. This and the idea of educa- 
tion for women are said to have made special appeal to the Society of Friends 
in England.^ 

Little aside from a gift of 20,000 acres of land was received during the 
next decade, but in 1850 an attempt at endowment was made, and by 1852 
almost $95,000 was raised and invested. This, however, was another sale 
of scholarships, which this time secured free tuition for one student perpetually 
for $100, 18 years for $50, and 6 years for $25. This was merely paying tui- 
tion in advance, but a little fig-uring will show that it must be counted 
an absurdly low tuition. The interest on $100 could not possibly pay the cost 
of educating a student. Thus the college increased its business," but on an 
unsound economic basis, which broke down with the high cost of living in the 
sixties. 

This is a fair picture of the relation of philanthropy to the manual labor 
college movement. There is little to distinguish it from the philanthropy 
in the old colleges where the manual labor idea was never adopted. It is just 
more evidence that philanthropy in education has been governed by the con- 
ditions of the times rather than by any wise educational philosophy. The 
manual labor college was but an incident in our great westward expansion. 

Such cure-all schemes in education were essential to the times. Hartford 
Theological Seminary carefully avoided the " incubus " of any permanent fund 
for the first few years, but when her subscribers fell off and lost their zeal 
for giving, an $11,000 bequest was gladly accepted as permanent endowment. 

Kenyon College sent out an appeal, " The Star in the West, or Kenyon 
College in the Year of Our Lord 1828," calling upon the reader to send $1 
to the struggling school. " Kenyon College Circles " were formed in numerous 
towns where women met and sewed for the college, and more than $25,000 was 
sent in as the result of this appeal. 

On the whole it is wiser to say that the manual labor movement was useful 
because it expressed an essential element in the civilization of that time than to 
say that it was useless because it was educationally and economically im- 
possible. 

PHILANTHROPHT THROUGH EDUCATION SOCIETIES. 

Another channel through which philanthropy has played a part in American 
higher education is that of religious education societies. These societies began 
to organize early in the nineteenth century in response to the demand for 
trained missionaries and ministers. Statistics published in early numbers of 
the American Quarterly Register show that churches were fully conscious of this 
need. 

Aside from several small local societies, the American Education Society ^' was 
the initial undertaking in this field, its original constitution being dated August 

2B Fairchild : Oberlin, the Colony and the College, p. 208. 

28 Ibid., p. 209. 

" This immediately increased the number of students from 570 to 1,020. 

2* In 1874 the American Education Society and the Society for the Promotion of Col- 
legiate and Theological Education in the West were united under the name American Col- 
lege and Education Society. See their annual reports for 1874. 



48 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

29, 1815.^" The aim of this society is made clear by the following statement 
from its original constitution : 

Taking into serious consideration the deplorable condition of the inhabitants 
of these United States, the greater part of whom are either destitute of com- 
petent religious instruction or exposed to the errors and enthusiasm of un- 
learned men, we * * * do hereby, * * * form ourselves into a society 
for the benevolent purpose of aiding, and of exciting others to aid, indigent 
young men of talents and hopeful piety in acquiring a learned and competent 
education for the Gospel Ministry. 

This Outlines a definite piece of work to be done, proposes philanthropy as a 
means, and indigent young men of talents and hopeful of piety as the agency 
for doing it. 

Further on in the constitution it is proposed to raise funds by subscription, 
and it is stated that " a permanent fund, of which five-sixths part of the interest 
only may be expended, shall be formed of bequests, legacies, donations, grants, 
and subscriptions," and further, that agents shall be appointed to solicit — 

by exciting churches and congregations to make annual collections for this pur- 
pose; and by establishing auxiliary societies in towns, counties, and distant 
regions, together with Cent Societies, * * * by personal and persevering 
addresses to rich individuals of both sexes, * * * and by respectful appli- 
cations to legislative bodies and other classes of men ; by establishing active and 
extensive correspondences, etc. 

All appropriations of funds are to be made by the trustees, who will also 
examine and select the candidates for the charity. All recipients of the charity 
who do not enter the ministry must refund the money received. The final 
article declares that " This Constitution, but not its object, may be altered 
and amended." 

The plans by which aid was granted have been changed from time to time,'" 
but since 1842 the money has been given as a gratuity. 

The bases for eligibility of applicants for assistance are stated in general 
terms only. Up to 1841 the applicant must have had 6 months of classical 
studies. During 1841 this was increased to 12 months, and in 1842 to college 
entrance requirements, with the exception of third-year academy students In 
some cases. This exception was later abolished. 

Such has been the general aim and plans of work of one^of the oldest of these 
societies in America. To describe the workings of the other societies of this 
type would be practically to repeat the above. The Presbyterian Education 
Society was founded in 1819, became a branch of the American Education So- 
ciety in 1827 ^ and operated as such until the break in the Presbyterian Church, 
which took place toward the close of the period under discussion. The society 
for educating pious young men for the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church was organized in 1818 and within a decade had 28 auxiliary societies 

** A copy of this constitution is printed in full in Appendix A of the annual report of 
the society for 1839. 

Whether this idea of organizing education societies for the training of ministers was 
borrowed from E>ngland is not known, but such a society existed in England as early as 
1648. The American Quarterly Register, vol. 3, pp. 145-152, published a tract showing 
" a model for the maintaining of students of choice abilities at the university, and prin- 
cipally in order to the ministry," followed by the names of trustees, among which were 
Matthew Poole, Richard Baxter, Wm. Bates, and others. In Chapter IV of the model we 
read : " That the scholars to be chosen be of godly life, or at the least, hopeful for godli- 
ness, of eminent parts, of an ingenious disposition, and such as are poor, or have not a 
suflScient maintenance any other way." This society had 44 students at Oxford and Cam- 
bridge at this time. 

"o See An. Rep. for 1889, p. 71 fif ; also Barnard's Amer. J. of Educ. vol. 14, p. 873 ff. 

"'An. Rep. Amer. Ed. Soc., 1839. 



THE EARLY l^ATIONAL PERIOD, 1716-1865. 



49 



operating under its supervision.''' The Massachusetts Baptist Education Society, 
later the board of education of the Northern Baptist Church, starting in 1814 ; 
the board of education of the Reformed Dutch Church, starting in 1828 ; the 
board of education of the Methodist Episcopal Church, starting in 1864 ; and the 
Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological Education in the West 
are the principal organizations of this type. Each of these had numerous 
branch societies, and all supported students in part or in full by loans. 

The development of branch or auxiliary societies in connection vpith the Amer- 
ican Education Society is a fair sample of their methods. Betvv^een 1815 and 
1838 there vrere organized 63 branch societies east of the Mississippi River and 
north of the southern boundary of Tennessee ; 41 of these were founded betv^een 
1829 and 1834.=^ 

Although the chief method of work was by direct gift or loan to the student, 
in some cases professorships were established, salaries were paid, and buildings 
erected. The gifts or loans to students were often no more than $40 per year. 

In 1829 to 1831 there were 18 to 22 theological seminaries in operation in the 
United States. Table 13 shows the number of students attending these schools 
and the number receiving aid from some education society." 

From this it appears that from one-fourth to one-sixth of the theological 
students in the United States at this time were beneficiaries of these organiza- 
tions. 

Table 15 sets forth for each fifth year, which may be taken as representative 
of the other years, the financial history of three of these societies, along with 
the numbers of beneficiaries they have had under their care during this period. 

Table 14 shows what a large part of the student body at Amherst College was 
receiving assistance from the American Education Society. 

Table 13. — Number of students in theological seminaries and number receiving 
aid from religious education societies. 



Dates. 


Students in 
seminaries. 


Receiving 
aid. 


1829 


599 
639 
709 


151 


1830. 


143 


1831 


115 







Table 14. — Number of students attending Amherst College, 184-5-1854, and 
number and per cent of these receiving aid from the American Educational 
Society.'^ 



Dates. 


Total 
students 
attending. 


Receiving aid from 

American Education 

Society. 




Number. 


Per cent. 


1845 


118 
120 
150 
166 
176 
182 
190 
195 
211 
237 


27 
28 
26 
45 
42 
57 
56 
46 
40 
58 


22.8 


1846 


23.3 


1847 


17.3 


1848 


27.1 


1849 


23.8 


1850 


31.3 


1851 . . 


29.0 


1852 


23 5 


1853 


19.0 


1854 


24.5 







o Data for this table taken from Edward H. Hitchcock's Reminiscences of Amherst College. 

«2Amer. Quar. Register, Jan., 1829, p. 190. 

»8From An. Rep. Am. Educ. Soc. for 1839, pp. 88-90. 

«* Data taken from Am. Quar. Register, ^-^l. 1, p. 220 ; vol. 2, p. 247 ; vol. 3, p. 303. 



50 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 15. — Showing for each fifth year the annual receipts and the number of 
students aided hy three church or religious educational societies.^ 



Date. 


American Educ. 
Society. 


Northern Baptist 
Educ. Society. 


Presbyterian 
Educ. Society. 


Amount 
received. 


Number 
aided. 


Amount 
received. 


Number 
aided. 


Amount 
received. 


Number 
aided. 


1817 


$5,714 
13, 108 
33,092 
41,927 
65,574 
32,352 
32, 831 
15,565 
28, 732 
16,559 
23,386 


138 
195 
300 
807 
1,125 
615 
389 
413 
332 
324 
200 


$604 
2,049 
2,245 
5,340 


11 

9 

19 

33 






1822 


$4,457 
11,860 
13,761 
37,038 
26,628 
39,545 
45,396 
48,632 
43,244 
51,308 


90 


1827 


230 


1832 


270 


1837 


562 


1842 






300 


1847 






403 


1852 






372 


1857 






383 


1862 






375 


1865 . 






254 











1 Compiled from the volumes of the American Quarterly Register and from the annual reports of the 
societies. 

One of these societies, the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and 
Theological Education in the West, had a slightly different purpose. It was 
organized in 1844, and operated as a separate society down to 1874, at which 
time it joined with the American Education Society. Its purpose as set forth 
in its charter ^ was to assist struggling young colleges in the West with funds 
collected in eastern churches.^* It was concerned with general as well as with 
theological training, and limited its aid not only to western colleges but only 
to such of these as showed promise. There is evidence that this society had 
influence in the development of higher standards in western colleges.^' 



Tabmj 16.- 



-Financial account of the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and 
Theological Education in the West. 



Years. 



1844 
1845 
1846 
1847, 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
1856 
1857 
1858 



Receipts. 



$17,004 
11,661 
15, 730 
14, 113 
12,339 
16, 737 
17,623 
16,962 
20,617 
20,931 
17,803 
19,021 
24,687 
18,007 
14, 103 



Grants. 



8,704 
13,194 
14,324 



12,296 
9,669 
6,978 
18,889 
11,692 
8,418 



Colleges 
aided. 



Years. 



1859 
1860 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 
1873 
1874 



Receipts. 



$15,185 
22, 528 
18,643 
60,270 
20,430 
26,913 
38,538 
58,426 
27, 803 
72, 289 
74, 742 
62,475 
76,505 
57,760 



Grants. 



$10,156 
17, 793 
14,689 
56,320 
14, 710 
23,588 
33,246 
51,319 
19,964 
65,695 
72,425 
51,022 
73,881 
52,979 



Colleges 
aided. 



Table 16, showing the work done by the society, will bear close study. The 
society gave aid " to the college," not to individual students, and did this in a 
way to keep down useless undertakings and to stimulate useful ones. 

If we compare the income of these societies with that of colleges reported in 
Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12, we will see that in these early years the work 
of these societies is by no means a mere incident in the educational machinery. 



* See the society's first annual report, 1844. 

«8 " It is an eastern society. Not a western vote affects the decisions of the board.' 
Fifth an. rep., 1848, p. 7. 

»^ See annual report for 1845, p. 12. 



THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 51 

From 1821 to 1825 Yale received by gift approximately $16,000 annually ; 
Princeton less than $2,000 ; Harvard about $12,000 ; and Amherst less than 
$4,000; while the American Education Society received close to $14,000, the 
Presbyterian Society over $5,000, and the Baptist Society some $1,500. 

We have pointed out that the ministry is the only calling for which training 
has thus far been subsidized in this way. The law, medicine, business, and 
technical pursuits have made their way by force of their economic importance 
to society. Has it been true that religion represents a " real " but not a " felt " 
need or has it been true, as Adam Smith would argue, that such procedure will 
overstock the occupation in question? 

The actual demand for ministers is shown in a convincing manner by sta- 
tistics published in the American Quarterly Register and in the annual reports 
of the societies.^^ That the demand was large is obvious from the fact that of 
all the graduates of 37 of the most prominent American colleges, from 20.8 per 
cent to 30.8 per cent entered the ministry in every five-year period between 
1776 and 1865.="* 

Important as this profession was, the demand did not bring forth the sup- 
ply, even with this special care. In this connection we must not overlook the 
fact that entrance to the ministry was by much longer educational route than 
was entrance to either the law or medicine, and without citing facts we know 
that it was not more remunerative than these other fields. 

It follows then that something had to be done to meet the situation, and 
these education societies were the response which the churches made. With all 
the obvious waste the method involved, it not only did much toward the sup- 
port of an important profession but it also supervised and helped to popiilarize 
the demand for higher education. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 

In summarizing the development of this period we may note that the English 
influence practically disappeared with the Revolution and that State and Na- 
tional support continued. 

Before the end of the period the idea of a State college had taken definite 
form, though the real burden still rested upon philanthropy. In nearly every 
State the church and private enterprise did the coUege pioneering. 

Small gifts and the subscription method were as common as was the poverty 
which characterized the financial history of practically all the colleges of the 
period. Few, even of th« older colleges, found themselves well endowed by 1861. 

It was a period in which the old traditional coUege curriculum and organi- 
zation yielded to the influence of the developments in science and to the broad- 
ening business and professional demands. Consequently, it was a time in 
which the conditions attaching to gifts were more numerous and perhaps more 
varied than in the past. In spite of this, there was a growing tendency to de- 
velop permanent funds. 

These tendencies are as characteristic of the new as of the old foundations, 
and in both the conditional gifts tend to go mainly to professorships, library, 
and buildings; that is, to the institution rather than to the student direct. 
While there is some increase in interest in direct assistance for students, it is 
given, Princeton excepted, on the basis of scholarly promise rather than on that 
of indigence and piety. 

»8 See an address of the board of education of the Presbyterian Church (their first 
annual report, 1819) , p. 14 ; also theii" annual report for 1843, p. 5 ; and the same for 
1867, p. 5. 

•Burritt, p. .144. 



52 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

The early financial history of the newer colleges of the period is identically 
like the beginning years of the old colonial group of colleges, but they grew 
much more rapidly. 

During this period also we have the beginnings of several new ideas in higher 
education, which open up several new lines of philanthropic activity^the de- 
velopment of professional schools, women's colleges, church education societies, 
and the manual labor college. 

In the development of schools of medicine, law, and theology we are struck 
by the fact that, from the standpoint of their scientific development, medicine 
and law achieved but little during this period and that very largely on the basis 
of private venture institutions, while theology was taken over by philanthropy 
and became well established, first as a department of the older colleges and 
later as separate schools. In the development of the theological schools de- 
nominationalism naturally played an important part, and the gathering of 
funds by the separate denominations from their own churches was the common 
practice. 

Colleges for women offered a new motive for giving to education but nothing 
at all new by way of a method of directing the use to which gifts should be put. 

When the law of supply and demand failed to provide enough ministers, 
philanthropy came at once to its rescue with education societies which played 
a large part in higher education during the period. 

The manual labor college was the most unique though not the most valuable 
venture in higher education undertaken during the period. It failed, but it 
was an experiment that was fully warranted if we consider the times in which 
it was tried, and surely it is balanced by the success of women's colleges. 

Whatever the value of the various experiments, it was philanthropy that 
initiated and carried them through, as it was mainly philanthropy that pioneered 
the new country and philanthropy that kept the old colleges alive through these 
years. 



Chapter IV. 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865 TO 1918. 



THE PERIOD CHARACTERIZED. 

The period fi*om 1865 to 1918 is quite unlike the colonial and early national 
periods in several v/ays. The rapid increase in population which began before 
the Civil War has continued, but has brought a foreign class far more ditficult 
of assimilation than was that of pre-war days. With the rapid development of 
machinery have come remarkable industrial and commercial expansion and 
remarkable means of communication and travel. The free public land has fast 
disappeared, bringing with it a demand for new and technical methods in agri- 
culture. The corporate method has been widely adopted, and large private 
fortunes have been amassed. 

Along with these changes have come many new things in education. The idea 
of State support of higher education has been fully established ; more than a 
dozen large private fortunes have given rise to as many institutions of higher 
learning'; and some 8 or 10 large nonteaching foundations have -been established. 
During this period a new interpretation of education has been developed in 
accordance with the findings of the newer sciences of sociology, psychology, and 
biology, and given concrete expression in the organization and methods of our 
institutions of higher education in the botanical garden, the laboratory method 
in all the sciences, in the free use of the elective system of studies, and in the 
broadened college entrance requirements. 

GROWTH IN NUMBER OF COIXEGES. 

Just how philanthropy has adjusted itself to these new conditions will now 
be shown. First of all, the relative number of colleges founded by philanthropy 
is a rough index of the extent, if not of the character, of its work. 

At the beginning of this period the tendency to found private or church 
'institutions was at its height, since which time the number has gradually 
decreased, till now very few are being established by either State or phi- 
lanthropy, not so much because there are universities enough as because the 
changed meaning of education and the new conception of a university have 
ruled out the type of enterprise that tended to subsist on enthusiasm rather 
than on funds. 

The new demands of this period have no more balked philanthropy than they 
have the State. If, however, consideration were given to the number of insti- 
tutions that ceased to exist, it would be seen that philanthropy had very often 
overstepped its mark. 

Soon after the Civil War, due very largely to the national land grant act of 
1862, the movement for State schools began to assert itself.^ Now all States 
have their higher institutions of learning, largely endowed by the National 
Government, but resting firmly upon a State tax. 

1 See Kandel, I. L. Federal Aid for Vocational Education. The Carnegie Foundation 
for the Advancement of Teaching, Bui. 10, 1917. 

63 



54 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 17. — Date of establishnvent and source of support and control of the first 
college or university in each of the States admitted subsequently to 1865. 



States. 



Nebraska 

Colorado 

North Dakota 
South Dakota. 

Montana 

Washington... 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Utah 

Oklahoma. . .. 
New Mexico. . 
Arizona 



Ad- 
mitted, 



1867 

1876 

1889 
1889 
1889 
1889 
1890 
1890 
1896 
1907 
1912 
1912 



First institution. 



Name. 



State University 

University of Denver , 

Jamestown College 

Yankton College , 

Montana College of Agriculture 

State University 

College of Idaho 

State University 

University of Utah 

State Agricultural College 

State University 

University of Arizona 



Date 
estab- 
hshed. 



1781 

1864 

1883 
1881 
1893 
1861 
1891 
1867 
1850 
1891 
1891 
1891 



Control. 



State. 
M.E. 

Presb 

Cong. 
State. 
State. 
Presb 
State. 
State. 
State. 
State. 
State. 



State 
university 
or school 
estab- 
lished. 



1871 
1874 
1877 
1884 
1882 
1893 
1861 
1892 
1867 
1850 
1891 
1891 
1891 



Niamber 
of colleges 
estab- 
lished 
before 
State 
univer- 
sity. 



Since 1865, 12 new States have been admitted to tlie Union. From Table 17 
we are able to see that for the most part it was the State rather than philan- 
thropy that did the pioneering in higher education in these States. In 9 of 
the 12 States higher education was well under way before the State was ad- 
mitted to the Union. In 8 of the 12 States the first such school was established 
by the State, while in the remaining 4 the chui'ch lead the way, and in these 
4 little had been done before the State institution was founded. 

This contrasts rather sharply with the facts brought out in Table 9, which 
shows these same facts for the early national period. Here we are dealing 
with Western States, for the most part very sparsely settled, whereas Table 9 
refers to Eastern and Central States, somewhat more densely populated. The 
chief explanation, however, would seem to be not that the missionary zeal 
of the churches, philanthropists, and educators was lagging, but rather that 
the idea of State higher education was getting under headway and that the 
national grant of 1862 came at an early date in the development of the West. 
The number of church and private foundations since established shows that the 
efforts of philanthropy have not flagged. 

Should the State, or private and philanthropic enterprise, determine the 
character and amount of higher education? And related to this, what powers 
should be granted to private or church-endowed institutions? The struggle 
between these social theories, a notable early date in which is that of the 
Dartmouth College decision in 1819, does not begin in 1865. It began in one 
sense with the opposition in New Jersey Colony and elsewhere to sectarian con- 
trol of the college which the colonial government was asked to help support. 
It began in a real sense in Revolutionary days and in the days when Ameri- 
can democracy was taking form as a nation. At that time it was urged that, 
since higher education will do much toward determining national ideals, the 
State should direct and control it; and the opposite, that the State ought not 
to be taxed to send anyone's son to college. It is interesting that Presidents 
White, of Cornell, and Eliot, of Harvard, were on opposing sides of this issue 
at the beginning of this period. 

Probably it is correct to say that this clash has provided the greatest stimu- 
lus to growth and expansion that has been felt by higher education through 
these years. This study can do little more than call attention here to these 
Interesting theoretical developments. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 



55 



GENERAL SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL PHILANTHROPY IN THIS PERIOD. 

Practically from its beginning in 1868 the United States Bureau of Education 
has included in its annual report statistics bearing upon the work of philan- 
thropy in education. The following tables offer a fairly competent general 
picture of the extent and character of philanthropy in higher education since 
1871. From Table 18 it is possible to see, at intervals of five years : First, the 
annual contribution to higher education from city, State, and Nation; second, 
the amounts contributed by students through tuition and other fees; third, 
the^amounts contributed by productive funds held by the colleges; fourth, the 
contributions from philanthropy ; fifth, the contributions from all other sources ; 
and, finally, the total annual income of all institutions of higher education. 
Besides these is stated the wealth of the United States in billions of dollars, 
and the population by millions for each decade. 

The steady increase in income from each of these sources as the years pass 
shows not only the rapid growth of higher education but the dependability of 
each of these sources of support. When the total column, or any single col- 
umn, is compared with the growth in national wealth, it is plain that higher 
education is more liberally supported each succeeding decade. It will be noted 
that the "benefactions" column does not show the degree of increase that is 
shown by the first column or by the " total " column. This, however, is to be 
expected with the rise of the State colleges in this period. But it will be seen 
that benefactions are not quite keeping pace with the rate of growth in wealth. 
On the other hand, the rate of increase in wealth is surpassed by the growth 
in income from productive funds, most of which funds have been established 
by philanthropy. 

In comparison with the growth in population, it is obvious that each decade 
is providing more educational facilities of a high order per unit of population 
than was provided by the next preceding decade. We have here to remind 
ourselves though that the per capita wealth has shown a far greater rate of 
increase than is shown by any of the other figures, which suggests that educa- 
tional and philanthropic enthusiasms are not outrunning their purses. 

Table 18. — Sou/rces and amounts of income for higher education in the United 
States, each fifth year from 1871 to 1915} 

jCompiled from tlie annual reports of the U. S. Commissioner of Education.] 



Dates. 


From city. 

State, 
or U. S. 


Tuition 

and other 

fees. 


Productive 
funds. 


Benefac- 
tions. 


All other 
sources. 


Total 
income. 


Wealth 

of U.S. 

in biUions 

of dollars. 


Pop. of 

U.S. in 
millions. 


1915 


$36, 347, 638 

24, 528, 197 

8, 522, 600 

4, 386, 040 

2, 954, 483 

1, 406, 117 

932, 635 

.418, 159 

667, 521 

582, 265 


$34, 067, 238 
19, 220, 297 
10, 919, 378 
8, 375, 793 
6,336,655 
3, 764, 984 
2, 270, 518 
1, 881, 350 
2, 136, 062 
4, 248, 143 


$18,246,427 
11, 592, 113 
8, 618, 649 
6,110,653 
5, 329, 001 
3, 966, 083 
3, 915, 545 
3, 014, 048 
2,453,336 
2,275,967 


$20, 310, 124 
18, 737, 145 
14, 965, 404 
10, 840, 084 
5,350,963 
6, 006, 474 
5, 134, 460 
2, 666, 571 
2, 703, 650 
6, 282, 461 


$9, 591, 784 
6, 561, 235 
1, 589, 896 
1, 964, 002 
2, 163, 499 
1, 664, 734 
1, 000, 000 
10 


$118, 299, 296 
80,438,987 
45, 715, 927 
31, 676, 572 
22, 134, 601 
16, 808, 734 
12, 253, 158 
7, 980, 138 
7, 960, 569 
13,388,836 






1910 

1905 


187. 73 
2 107. 10 

88.51 
3 77.09 

65.03 


91.9 


1900 

1895 


75.9 


1890 

1885 


62.9 


1880 

1875 


42.64 


50.1 


1872 




<30.06 


4 3g 5 









> From 1871 this table includes universities and colleges for men and for both sexes; after 1905 techno- 
logical schools are added; and after 1910 women's colleges are added. Before 1888 column 1 includes income 
from State only; in 1890 it includes income from State and city; and after 1891 it includes income from States, 
cities, and United States. Column 2 includes only tuition down to 1898, after which it includes "other 
fees" (board and room rent). The figures in any given hne, that is, for any given year, are fully comparable . 
In comparing the figures for one year or period with those of a later year or period, the above facts must be 
kept in mindT. 

2 For year 1904. 

» Estimated. 

* For year 1870. 



56 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 19, covering the period from 1871 to -1S85, including gifts to secondary 
as well as higher schools, shows that on an average more than half of all 
gifts have gone to "permanent endowment and general purposes." What part 
of this was available for immediate use it is not possible to determine ; nor is 
it possible to say what were the special conditions placed upon the gifts. 



Table 19. 



'Total benefactions to all forms of education and the per rent of that 
total given under the restrictions indicated. 





Total bene- 
factions. 


Per cent given to— 


Dates. 


Endow- 
ments 
and 
general 
purposes. 


Profes- 
sorships. 


FeUow- 
ships, 

scholar- 
ships, 
and 
prizes. 


Grounds, 
build- 
ings, and 
appara- 
tus. 


Indigent 
students. 


Libraries 

and 
museums. 


Uncon- 
ditional 
purposes. 


1885 


$9,314,081 
11,270,286 
7,141,363 
7,440,224 
5,518,501 
5,249,810 
3,103,289 
3,015,256 
4,691,845 
4,126,562 
6,053,804 
11,225,977 
10,072,540 
8,593,740 


68 
40 
45 
53 
54 
50 
57 
57 
38 
54 
68 
70 
23 
44 


7 

7 

7 
14 
15 

3 

4 

7 

5 

5 

2 

9 

6 

2. 


2 
3 
3 
3 
7 
1 
4 
3 
3 
1 
1 
2 
1 


20 
20 
15 
18 
12 
24 
16 
18 
32 
24 
21 
17 
34 
24 


1 


2 
15 
2 
2 
3 

14 
6 
12 
15 
6 
2 
2 


10 


1884 


14 


1882-83 


2 
2 
2 
1 
3 
3 


26 


1881 


g 


1880 


7 


1879 


7 


1878 


10 


1877 




1876 


7 


1875 


2 
2 


g 


1874 


4 


1873 




1872 


1 




1871 

















From a study of the " professorships " and the " fellowships, scholarships, 
and prizes " columns, which are not included in the " endowments and general 
purposes " column, it would be natural to infer that much of column two went 
to general unrestricted endowments. From the staudpoi-nt of growth in per- 
manent endowment funds, however, the whole table, as a single sample of 
evidence, is quite reassuring. Furthermore, there is little to criticize in the 
evidence available on the nature of the conditions placed upon the gifts. 

A fairly considerable amount has always been given unconditionally in the 
past, if we judge by individual cases which have been cited in the last two 
chapters, and here is evidence that this was true in general over the country 
through these 15 years. The " to indigent students " column seems to indicate 
that what was true in the early cases studied was also true in general. 

In Table 20 is shown, from the same source, the distribution of gifts under 
three heads for the years 1907 to 1915, inclusive. Here there is no mistaking 
the evidence that generally over the country there is an increasing interest in 
giving to the permanent endowment of higher education. In this table the 
"endowments" column includes all gifts from which only the incomes can be 
used. By combining the three columns of Table 19 which represent gifts to 
permanent endowments, and assuming that " general purposes " in column one 
is also endowment, which is likely ti'ue, we can still see a clear indication that 
a larger percentage of gifts is going into permanent funds now than was true 
at the beginning of this period. 

It appears also that the gifts to " plant and equipment " make a better show- 
ing in Table 20 than in Table 19. In both there is much fluctuation. The 
" current expenses " column, comparable with the hist column of Table 19, shows 
improvement in quantity as well as a greater dependability. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 



57 



A third collection of facts compiled from the United States Commissioner's 
reports and presented in the following tables furnishes evidence upon which 
we may generalize regarding the character and extent of benefactions to higher 
education through this period. 

Table 20. — Benefactions to higher education in, the United States and the per 
cent of that total given for endowments, for plant and equipment, and for 
current expenses. 



Dates. 



Total gifts. 



Per cent for — 



Endow- 
ments. 



Plant 
and 
equip- 
ment. 



Current 
expenses. 



1915 
1914 
1913 
1912 
1911, 
1910, 
1909. 
1908, 
1907. 



,310,124 
670,017 
651,958 
783,090 
963, 145 
755, 663 
807, 122 
820, 955 
953,339 



Table 21 shows the number of schools of theology, law, medicine, dentistry, 
pharmacy, agriculture, and mechanic arts, and of women's colleges that were 
opened during each five-year period since the first one was founded in 1761- 
1765. No account is taken here of colleges that have failed. 

Three forces have assisted in the development of these schools — the State, 
philanthropy, and private enterprise. Philanthropy is almost, if not solely, 
responsible for the schools of theology. The State and private enterprise, 
with some help from philanthropy, have developed the law schools. All three 
are responsible for the medical schoyls, though private enterprise is playing 
a' smaller and smaller part. Philanthropy has shown very little interest thus 
far in schools of dentistry and pharmacy, but has contributed liberally to 
colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts, which latter have been fostered 
mainly by the State. In most cases the State provides coeducational uni- 
versities but not special schools for . women.^ The women's colleges included 
in this table are therefore the work of philanthropy and private enterprise. 

Table 22 shows the part that philanthropy has taken in the development 
of these colleges. 

The table is not complete, but one can not run up those columns' without 
being impressed with the strength of the appeal which these fields of higher 
education have so continuously made to the people. Gifts for the higher 
education of women have increased with fair regularity and to a creditable 
extent. 



2 Florida State University has a separate college for women. 



58 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 21. — Distributiofi of the present list (1915-16) of professional and tech- 
nical and women's colleges with respect to the dates of their opening. 



Dates. 


Theol- 
ogy. 


Law. 


Medi- 
cine. 


Dentis- 
try. 


Phar- 
macy. 


Agric. 

and 
mech. 

arts. 


Women's 
colleges. 


1761 1765 






1 
1 

1 










1766-1779 














1781 1785 


1 












1786-1790 


1 










1791-1795 


2 

1 




. 








1796-1800 




1 










1801-1805 








1 




1805-1810 


2 
2 
5 
5 
6 
4 
4 
4 
6 
7 

13 
7 

18 
9 
3 

14 
8 

14 
5 
9 
3 
3 




1 
1 
2 
5 

1 

3 
6 
6 
1 
5 
2 
4 
4 
4 
3 
5 
9 
5 
10 
6 
3 








1811-1815 


1 
1 










1816-1820 










1821-1825 




1 
1 






1826-1830 


1 
3 






1 


1831-1835 




1 


2 


1836-1840 


1 
1 


1 
1 

1 


5 


1841-1845 


1 
4 
2 
4 


1 

1 
1 
4 
4 
8 
9 
4 
3 
5 
8 


5 


1846-1850 


7 


1851-1855 




16 


1856-1860 




1 


15 


1861-1865 


1 
4 
1 

5 
5 
9 
8 
7 
6 


2 


1866-1870 r 


9 
7 
5 
4 
6 
16 
15 
10 
14 
15 


3 
2 
2 
7 
S 
15 
13 
11 
5 
6 


11 


1871-1875 


8 


1875-1880 


4 


1881-1885 


5 


1886-1890 


9 


1891-1895 


8 


1895-1900 


6 


1901-1905 


1 

1 


8 


1906-1910 


2 


1911-1915 


1 










Total 


155 


119 


92 


49 


75 


52 


114 







Table 22. — Benefactions to different lines of higher education w the United 
States each fifth year, 1871-1915. 



Dates. 


Higher ' 
education 
of women. 


Theological 
schools. 


Medical 
schools. 


National 
land-grant 
schools and 

schools of 
science. 


Schools * 
of law. 


1915 




$1,467,055 

. 1,431,028 

< 1,890, 606 

1, 123, 812 

1,385,552 

6 923, 831 

681,855 

827,856 

404,356 

652,265 


1 $2, 661, 076 

509, 227 

354,210 

183,500 

95,260 

'249,287 

94,250 

11,400 

72,395 

2,000 




2 $90, 576 
'86 334 


1910 


$1,303,431 

1, 107, 523 

588, 566 

625,734 

303, 257 

322,813 

92,372 

217, 887 

1,600,000 




1905 






1900 




105,500 


1895 




1890 


6 $205, 295 
562,371 

1,371,445 
147, 112 
285,000 


6 14,663 
*40 150 


1885 


1880 


' lOO' 000 


1875 




1871 









1 In 1914 medical schools received $7,113,920. 

2 In 1914 law schools received gifts amounting to $203,067; in 1913, $189,453; in 1912, $425,867. 
« In 1909 law schools received $356,800, and in 1908, $382,000. 

* In 1906 theological schools received $3,271,480. 
'In 1891. 
•In 1886. 
'In 1878. 



Considering the steady decline in strictly sectarian theology through these 
years, and the general decline in religious zeal, gifts to theological schools 
have been large, as have all the others. 

The column of gifts to medical schools shows the growth that has taken 
place in medical science as well as in medical education through this, period. 
The same is, of course, not true of the theology column. In the absolute both 
theological and medical education have prospered. Both rise very slowly from 



THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 59 

the start, with slight advantage in favor of theological education down to 
1890, and with this advantage slowly increasing from 1890 to 1909, after which 
medical education leaps far ahead. 

Philanthropy, speaking now in relative terms, very definitely began to turn 
away from theology about 1890, and soon after to look with slightly more 
favor upon medical education. In the last decade these tendencies have become 
marked. 

Turning again to Table 22 one is struck first by the immediate and liberal 
notice which philanthropists gave to the land-grant colleges and schools of sci- 
ence. The last column of the table is interesting in itself, and more so in 
comparison with the column showing gifts to medical schools. It is apparent 
here that society began to call a halt on apprenticeship methods of learning 
medicine before it did the same for law. Law lias tended to remain much 
more a business than a profession, while the opposite is true of medicine and 
theology. 

Taking these data from the Reports of the United States Commissioner of 
Education as a rough general picture of the educational philanthropy of this 
period, for it is dependable as such, one is impressed with the large contribu- 
tion which has been made ; with the apparent regularity or dependability of 
such sources of income ; with the size, in the absolute, of the permanent sources 
which are thus being built up, but with the relative decline in such resources 
when all higher institutions of education are considered ; with the relative 
increase in the amount of gifts to establish professorships ; with the recent 
tendency toward increase in gifts to cover current expenses ; with the regu- 
larity with which one-third to one-fifth of all gifts have gone to plant and 
equipment ; with the rise, both relative and absolute, in the gifts to medical 
schools ; with the corresponding decline in gifts to schools of theology ; and 
with the relatively slow increase in gifts to schools of law. 

STATUS OF EDUCATION AMONG ALL THE OBJECTS OF PHILANTHROPY. 

Another source of data covering almost the last quarter century, and so 
almost half the period under discussion, is that contained in the Appleton 
and International Yearbooks and the World's Almanac. In these annuals 
there have been published the most complete available lists of all gifts of 
$5,000 and over, together with the object for which each was given. For some 
of the years these gifts have been classified under the following five heads : 
Educational institutions ; charities ; religious organizations ; museums, galleries, 
public improvements ; and libraries. Where they were not so classified the 
writer has been able to make such a classification with reasonable accuracy. 
In addition the gifts were also recorded as having been made by gift or by 
bequest, so that this classification was also possible. In these data, then, 
there is a valuable addition to the general description of philanthropy just 
presented. 

111512°— 22 5 



60 



PHILANTHROPY IIT AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 23. — Distribution of the gifts and bequests recorded in the Appleton and 
New International Yearbook and the World's Almanac, 1893-1916. 





Amount of 
gifts and 
bequests. 


Per cent of total given to— 


Per cent in form of— 


Years. 


Educa- 
tion. 


Charity. 


Religious 
purposes. 


Museums 

and 

public 

improve- 
ments. 


Libraries. 


Dona- 
tions. 


Bequests. 


1893 


$14,283,254 
15, 976, 466 
13,930,505 
13,831,211 
12,436,391 
20,405,034 
43,314,282 
23,H90,473 
72,334,450 
55,174,640 
50,026.058 
24,91S;399 
70,000,000 
29,775,000 
89,817,208 
46,552,039 
36,122,241 
61,283,182 
61,879,296 
35,207,907 
57,601,997 
90,741,210 
35,354,338 
72,612,619 


47 
43 
50 
50 
31 
57 
66 
54 
66 
60 
75 
45 
57 
79 
58 
40 
31 
43 
49 
16 
23 
45 
25 
9 


21 
20 
19 
16 
17 
25 
18 
27 
13 
21 
7 
29 
18 
15 
16 
44 
46 
38 
26 
76 
50 
48 
54 
88 


14 
11 
12 
19 
13 
7 

10 
7 
5 
6 
3 
9 
17 
4 
4 
4 

15 
8 
16 
4 

13 
2 
12 
2 


6 
17 
12 
9 

35 
7 
3 
5 
7 
8 
9 
14 
8 
2 
20 
10 
5 
6 
8 
3 
13 
4 
8 
1 


12 
9 
7 
6 
4 
3 
3 
7 
9 
5 
6 
3 


2 
2 
3 
5 

i + 


28 
17 
66 
48 
32 
54 
69 
55 
73 
49 
60 
30 
(1) 
83 
67 
48 
47 
70 
70 
74 
46 
67 
42 
82 


72 


i894 


83 


1895 


34 


1896 


52 


1897 


68 


1898 


46 


1899 


31 


1900 


45 


1901 


27 


1902 


51 


1903 


40 


1904 .... 


70 


1905 


(') 


1906 


17 


1907 


33 


1908 


52 


1909 


53 


1910 


30 


1911 


30 


1912 


26 


1913 


54 


1914 


33 


1915 


58 


1916 


18 






Total 




34 
43 


49 
37 


7 
9- 


8 
9+ 


2 
2 


64 
59 


36 


Total with 1916 
excluded 




41 









1 Data inadequate. 

This total column gives rather forceful evidence of the large part of the 
world's work that is being done by philanthropy. Through these 24 years the 
range is from 27 to 764 millions of dollars, with an average of nearly 125 
millions. In 1915-16 the entire cost of public education in New York City was 
$45,010,424, and that for Chicago was $28,604,534. In this same year the total 
outlay for public education in the State of New York, which had the largest of 
all our State budgets for schools, was $68,761,125, while that for the United 
States was but $640,717,053. Again, the total income of all universities, col- 
leges, and technological schools reporting to the United States Commissioner 
of Education in this year was $113,850,848. 

If the huge gifts summarized in the table are flowing annually into the five 
channels indicated, we may see from these comparisons the large forces that 
are operating constantly to determine the character of the institutions of edu- 
cation, charity, and so on. 

In considering the sum total of all benefactions, three questions deserve con- 
sideration. First, what is the relative position of education among the objects 
of these gifts ; second, with what degree of regularity do these gifts come — that 
is, how dependable a resource does this make for education ; and, third, how 
large a contribution is this to education? Incidentally, there is interest, too, 
in the same questions regarding gifts to other objects, especially to libraries 
and museums, since these play a direct part in the education of the people. 

The first question is readily answered by Table 23, from which it will be 
seen that up to 1916 education was receiving annually from 16 to 79 per cent 
of these gifts, with a median of 49 per cent. When the- figures for 1916 are 
included, and the totals taken for the 24-year period, it can be stated that 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 



61 



education has received approximately 34 per cent of all gifts for the past 24 
years. Or, leaving out 1916, as obviously influenced by war charity, education 
received 43 per cent of all gifts of $5,000 or over in the United States. 

The second question, how dependable is this source of income for education, 
may also be answered by this table, from which it is obvious that from year to 
year there have been wide variations. Consequently, an average or a median 
is not a full statement of the history of these benefactions, but the relative 
status of each of these recipients by years must be considered, and a number 
of points stand out. First, the facts about variability. What is true of educa- 
tion is true of the other objects. Second, giving to education gradually in- 
creased from 1893 to 1906, after which it declined to 1915 and 1916 to a point 
distinctly lower than the 1893 mark. At the same time the gifts to charity, 
which roughly maintain their 1893 status down to 1907, make a rise that is 
even sharper than is the decline in gifts to education. Gifts to religion have 
been quite variable, but show a general decline from the beginning to the end 
of the period. Practically the same statement can be made with respect to 
gifts to museums, galleries, and public improvements, with the exception that 
the variability is greater. The gifts to libraries show a very definite and 
regular decline from 1893 to 1916. It follows, then, that charity is education's 
great competitor, and we may be fairly sure that wars, famines, earthquakes, 
and other great disasters which appeal to human sympathy for help will be 
costly to education. The more recent rise in gifts to charity is partly accounted 
for by the Balkan and the World War and to several great earthquakes and 
fire disasters. 

The third question, how large a help is this to education, is answered in 
Table 24, where the gifts to education and to libraries are set down beside the 
figures showing the total annual income to higher education in the United 
States. The annual income of higher education is used here merely as a con- 
venient basis for measuring the amounts of the benefactions. From this we 
are able to see what the extent of philanthropy in education really is. To 
these educational benefactions might with some propriety be added those to 
libraries. 

There is one other item of interest here, brought out in the last two columns 
of Table 23, viz, the extent to which these benefactions have preceded or fol- 
lowed the death of the donor. In 13 of the 23 years covered by the data a 
greater per cent has come by direct gift. Summing up the 23 years, the figures 
are 64 per cent by gift and 36 per cent by bequest. If 1916 is omitted, the 
figures are: Gifts, 59 per cent and bequests 41 per cent. The lowest per cent 
of gifts for any year was 17 in 1894 and the highest was 83 in 1906. 

Table 24. — Total benefactions to all forms of education in the United States, 
the total income for higher ediocation in the United States as reported by the 
United States Gommdssioner of Education, and gifts to libraries. 



Years. 


Benefactions 

to all forms of 

education .1 


Total income 

of higher 
education.^ 


Benefactions 
to libraries.! 


1916 


$72,612,619 
35,354,338 
90, 741, 210 
57,601,997 
35,207,907 
61,879,296 
61,283,182 
46,122,241 
36,552,039 


$133,627,211 
118, 299, 296 
120,579,257 
109,590,855 
104,514,095 
94,672,441 
80,438,987 
76,650,969 
66,790,924 


S2, 717, 450 
916, 000 


1915 


1914 


1, 881, 000 


1913 


2,162,000 
2,112,000 
1,942,500 


1912 


1911 


1910 


1,911,000 


1909 


3,012,293 
834,500 


1908 



' From yearbooks above cited. 

2 From Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education. 



62 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 

Table 24. — Total benefactions to all forms of education, etc. — CJontinued. 



Years. 


Benefactions 

to all forms of 

education. 


Total income 
of higher 
education. 


Benefactions 
to libraries. 


1907 


$89,817,208 
29,775,000 
70,000,000 
24,918,399 
50,026,058 
55,174,640 
72,334,450 
23,690,473 
43,314,282 
20,405,034 
12,436,391 
13,831,211 
13,930,505 
15,976,466 
14,283,254 


$68,079,616 
57,502,280 
45,715,927 
41,618,228 
40,526,616 
39,952,798 
39,812,256 
31,676,572 
41,152,710 
26,745,610 
25,608,446 
26,260,902 
22,134,601 
24,390,852 
20,133,191 


$1,674,250 


1906 




1905 




1904 


961,100 


1903 


3,838,500 


1902 . 


4,045,500 


1901 


9,048,228 


1900 


3,270,000 


1899 


1,624,500 


1898.. 


942,500 


1897 


1,778,000 


1896 


1,535,000 


1 895 


1,736,000 


1894 


3,912,713 


1893 


3,087,000 







To the general picture then we may add, from the facts brought out here, 
that the general impressions gained from the data of the United States Com- 
missioner's reports are reinforced at several points. Compared with the cost 
of education in the country, these gifts are of great consideration. Second, 
they have been, and there is reason to believe that they wiU continue to be, a 
dependable resource. Third, there is a definite decline in the amount of these 
gifts, which, however, seems to be explained by a corresponding rise in gifts 
to charity — charity so obviously demanded by the great catastrophes of the 
years of this decline. In addition, there is a decline in gifts to religion, to 
public improvements, and to libraries. With the exception of gifts to libraries, 
which have slightly declined in absolute amount, these declines are only rela- 
tive, as may be seen from column three in Table 24. What should have caused 
this lessening of gifts to libraries is not evident from these figures. Carne- 
gie's gifts extend from about 1881, and reports show no special decline in his 
gifts until very recently. 

PHILANTHROPT AND THE OLDER COLLEGES. 

Turning again to Tables 3, 4, and 6 for a more intensive study of philan- 
throphy as it affected three of our old colonial colleges, we are able to follow 
the tendencies through the present period. 

Briefly stated, it may be noted that during this period no State support was 
received ; that, looked at from any angle, the amounts of gifts have more than 
kept pace with their former record ; that at Harvard and Columbia the earlier 
tendency to place a condition upon the gifts has continued, while at Yale the 
opposite has been true ; and that gifts for permanent endowment show a rela- 
tive decline at Harvard and Yale through this period, while at Columbia such 
gifts seem less popular than at Harvard, but more popular than at Yale. 

Of the conditional gifts, it may be said that the " pious and indigent youth " 
has continued to fare less well throughout this period ; that gifts for scholar- 
ships £md fellowships have become more popular; that relatively (not in 
absolute amount) there has been a decline in gifts for professorships, except 
at Columbia; and that a still sharper relative decline in gifts to libraries has 
appeared. As to the form of gift, there is no special tendency anywhere 
toward gifts or bequests, except possibly at Yale, where bequests have increased. 

Everywhere in these older institutions there is evidence of remarkable 
growth. Harvard is now well into the last quarter of its third century, and 
Columbia beyond the middle of its second century. There have been no more 



THE LATE ISTATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 



63 



rapidly changing centuries in history than these. Surely these facts show that 
educational institutions founded and maintained by philanthropy can keep 
step with the passing years. If the " dead hand " had lain heavily upon these 
institutions, they would scarcely have maintained this rate of growth, either 
in toto or in the special lines here represented. 

PHILANTHKOPT IN COULJSGES OF THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD. 
1. NEW LINES OF DEVELOPMENT. 

In Chapter IV was described the work of philanthropy in a numiber of col- 
leges which were founded during the early national period. Several new lines 
of development were begun in those years, notable among which were the be- 
ginnings of separate colleges for women, manual labor colleges, and separate 
schools of theology. It will be the purpose here to carry forward the study 
of several of those institutions. 

It was said there that the philanthropy of that period was in the maia di- 
rected by the various churches, and that in point of method the new colleges 
of those days originated and grew very much as did the colleges of the early 
colonial times. 

2. AMHEEST AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE COLLEGES OF LAST PERIOD. 

Fairly complete data for Amherst College are presented in Tables 11 and 25. 
In Table 11 the Amherst data already discussed * have been carried forward to 
1890. From this nmy be noted a continuance of most of the tendencies that had 
prevailed before the Civil War. The State did nothing more for the college, 
but the average annual income from gifts gradually increased. Most of the 
gifts were for a specified purpose, and among these, scholarships, professor- 
ships, and the library fared well. For some years after the Civil War the 
gifts were made immediately available, but endowments were favored from 
1876 to 1890. The subscription method of obtaining gifts falls into disuse or 
nearly so, and as was true from' the beginning, most of this income was by 
direct gift rather than by bequest. 

In Table 25 is presented Amherst's income from " tuition and student fees," 
from " productive funds," and from " benefactions." This table covers the 
period 1895 to 1916, inclusive, at 4-year intervals, and brings out several inter- 
esting points. First, the amount from gifts fluctuates from year to year, 
roughly increasing up to the beginning of the World War and then declining. 
Income from tuition has also varied, but shows a substantial increase to the 
present, and income from pernnanent endowment funds has grov/n regularly, 
having more than doubled during the 22 years covered by the table. 



Table 25. 



-Income of Amherst College each fourth year, as reported hy the 
United States Commissioner of Education. 



Dates. 


Tuition 
and fees. 


Productive 
funds. 


Benefac- 
tions. 


Total 
receipts. 


1895 


$42,000 
50,000 
40,000 
37,500 
64,012 
59,957 
61,521 


$62,000 
50,000 
60,000 
90,000 
105,371 
139,982 
136,648 


$30,000 
65, 000 

100,000 
78,000 

509, 748 
30,552 
31,223 


$140 000 


1899 


165 000 


1903 


200,000 
210,500 
704 895 


1907 


1911 


1915 


237,' 834 
241,550 


1916 





a See p. 42 ft. 



64 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



From these facts it is clear that if the college does not expand too rapidly, 
it will very soon be on a remarkably sound basis. 



3. THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS. 

•The growth of Amherst is somewhat paralleled by that of Andover Theologi- 
cal Seminary, the early history of which has already been discussed.'' Refer- 
ring again to Table 12, it will be seen that after the Civil War, and down to 
1890, Andover continued to receive contributions to her permanent funds, and 
that in increasing amounts. The details of these endowments are not all given 
in the table, but enough is shown to indicate that professorships, scholarships, 
and the library fared well. 

According to reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, the 
total amount of Andover's permanent funds in 1872 was $550,000. With some 
fluctuations these funds have gradually increased to more than $810,000 in 
1915. As early as 1852 these funds were furnishing an annual income of 
$35,000. By 1889 this had grown to $55,000, and it is recorded ' that this was 
the entire income of the school for the year. 

Here, then, is a theological school, founded in 1807, which has slowly built 
up an endowment fund that makes it virtually independent. 

4. women's colleges. 

As we have already seen,' Mount Holyoke College was one of the pioneer 
institutions devoted to the higher education of women. The school was founded 
and became well established in the second quarter of last century. The fol- 
lowing tables will show something of its financial career since the close of the 
early national period. 

Up to 1875 practically no permanent endowment funds had been accumulated. 
The school had in a very real sense been on trial' as a new philanthropic 
social project. That it fully proved its worth and received a large social sanc- 
tion is shown by the figures of Table 26. 

Column 1 of this table shows the total amount of permanent funds possessed 
by the college at intervals of five years from 1875 to 1915. In 1875 the college 
possessed a permanent fund of $50,000. In 1915 this had grown to near a 
million and a half dollars. 

Table 26. — Total endotvment, total income, and sources of income for Mount 
Holyoke College at intervals of five years, 1875-1915.°' 



• 


Total en- 
dowment. 


Total in- 
come for 
the year. 


Benefac- 
tions. 


Income from— 


Dates. 


Productive 
funds. 


Tuition and 
other fees. 


1875 


$50,000 
63,486 
103, 600 
150,000 
99,000 
475, 000 
801, 000 
838,750 
1, 426, 173 


$48, 000 
42,294 
55, 500 




$3,000 
4,350 
7,500 


$45,000 
i>37 944 


1880 




1885 




b 48, 000 


1890 


$19, 000 
6,200 
31,000 

276,000 
31, 292 
12,830 




1895 


74,000 
139,663 
187, 000 
279, 721 
349, 828 


5,000 
24,061 
19,000 
34,666 
50, 820 


69,000 


1900 


115 602 


1905 


168, 000 


1910 


100 197 


1915 


114, 643 







a Compiled from reports of United States Commissioner of Education. 
b Includes board and tuition 

* See p. 44. 

B Rep. U. S. Commis. Educ, 1889. 

• See p. 45 fE. 

^A Boston paper refused to publish Miss Lyon's statements in behalf of the college 
unless paid for as advertising. Stowe, Hist, of Mount Holyoke Sem., sec. ed., 1887, p. 41. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 



65 



It will be seen that permanent funds are rapidly assuming a larger and 
larger share in the annual income of the college, the main sources of which are 
also shown in this table. In 1875 the school received $3,000 from the income 
on permanent funds and $45,000 from student fees. In 1915 permanent funds 
produced $50,820 and tuition amounted to $114,643. This shows even more 
clearly what was mentioned above, and just what we have seen to be true of 
Andover and of Amherst, viz, that the rate of growth in income from perma- 
nent funds is greater than is the rate of growth in income from other sources. 
If this rate continues, it will not be many decades before philanthropy will 
have produced a college for women that will not be dependent upon student 
fees and that in spite of an extremely modest financial beginning. 

No small part of Mount Holyoke's permanent funds are devoted to the gen- 
eral endowment of the college. The growth of this general fund, together with 
the permanent fund for scholarships, is shown in Table 27. 

Table 27. — Growth of ttoo of Mount Holyoke's permanent funds, that for gen- 
eral purposes and that for scholarships^ 



Date. 


Gifts to permanent 
fund for— 


Date. 


Gifts to permanent 
fund for- 


General 
purposes. 


Scholar- 
ships. 


General 
purposes. 


Scholar- 
ships. 


Before 1875 


$4,640 


$26,666 
7,000 
22, 500 
10,000 
19,000 
43,500 


1901-1905.. . 


$223,363 

5,500 

432,750 


$14, 000 
19 500 


1876-1880 


1906-1910 


1881-1885 


25,000 

50,792 

164, 134 

185,000 


1911-1915 


56*314 


1886-1890 


» Total 




1891-1895 


1,091,179 


218 480 


1896-1900 











» Compiled from catalogues and the president's report. 

From this table it appears that these two funds have increased rapidly and 
that each has reached a position of importance in the support of the college. 

5. OBEKLIN AN EXAMPLE OF THE MANUAL LABOR COLLEGE. 

Oberlin College was another institution of the early national period whose 
early history has been traced.* It was pointed out that Oberlin's attempts at 
gathering funds for permanent endowment were pretty much a failure before 
the Civil War. Table 28 furnishes us with a very remarkable sequel, however, 
to that earlier story of hard times, for since the Civil War Oberlin has made 
progress quite similar to that noted above for Amherst, Andover, and Mount 
Holyoke. 

It is not only in Oberlin's total, however, but in the purposes for which 
these totals were given that we see the large value of her endowment. This the 
table makes clear through a period of almost a half century. 



• See p. 46 ff. 



66 



PHIIAlSrTHROPT IK AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION". 



Table 28. — Distribution of Oberlin's permanent funds, received by gift and 

bequest, 18S3-1915} 





Total. 


To general funds of— 


Special funds. 


Dates. 


Univer- 
sity. 


CoUege. 


Seminary. 


Library. 


Professor- 
ships.2 


Scholar- 
ships .3 


1860-1865 


$6,000 

25, 000 

28,494 

96,291 

464,093 

125,219 

97,692 

116,877 

537,103 

538,796 

348,243 












$6,000 


1866-1870 










$25,000 

8,935 

91,005 

148,906 
92,268 
68,000 
12,624 

108,919 
40,000 


1871-1875 


$17,514 

1,286 

186,026 








2,045 


1876-1880 








4,000 


1881-1885 


$68,059 


$42,135 
133 
427 


$887 
14, 276 


18,100 


1886-1890 


18,542 


1891-1895 


24,815 

72,944 

372,319 

343,496 

188,585 




4,450 


1896-1900 




5,824 
4,752 
73,549 


25,585 


1901-1905 


10,000 
68, 034 
4,142 


28, 113 
37, 767 
96,016 


13,000 


1906-1910 

1911-1915 


15,750 
59,500 











1 Data for this table were compiled from the Oberlin General Catalogue, 1833-1908, and the Quinquennial 
Catalogue for 1916. 

2 Of the total amount of benefactions for this purpose to 1908, 51 per cent was received as direct gifts, 
24 per cent by bequest, and 25 per cent by endowment canvasses. Nearly 26 per cent of it was for the 
endowment of religious and theological instruction and 18 per cent for instruction in natural and physical 
sciences. 

3 Of the total amount given for the endowment of scholarships during these years , 22 per cent was received 
by bequests, nearly 5 per cent came from churches, and 3 per cent from different classes of alumni. About 
14 per cent of it was for those entering missionary work or those who were children of missionaries, more 
than 25 per cent was for indigent self-supporting students, 8 per cent for colored students, and 15 per cent 
for girls. 

Some details concerning the growth of the professorship funds are added in 
Table 29. From these facts it appears that slightly more than half of the 
total of these funds was built up by subscription methods, approximately one- 
fourth by gift and the same by bequest. 

• 

Table 29. — Date, amount, and source of each endowed professorship at Oberlin 

College. 



Dates. 


Amount. 


How obtained. 


Branch of instruction endowed. 


1867 


$25,000 
8,935 
21,371 
19,634 
50,000 
25,000 
25,158 
23, 748 
30,000 
25,000 
20,000 
55,881 
36,387 
38,000 

30,000 
12,524 
30,419 
40,000 
38,500 
40,000 


Bequest 


Greek literature and archaeology. 


1875 


Subscription 


New Testament language andliterature. 


1877 


do 


Old Testament language and Uterature. 


1879 


do 


Botany. 


1880 


Gift 


Philosophy and psychology. 


1881 


do 


Homiletics. 


1882 


Subscription 


Church history. 


1882 


do 


Economic and social science. 


1882 


Gift 


Latin language and literature. 


1884 


Bequest 


Mathematics. 


1885 


Gift 


Physiology and physical training. 


1889 


Bequest 


German and French. 


1888 


Subscription 


Theology. 


1893 


Gift 


Dean of women and director of women's gsrmDa- 


1895 


do 


sium. 
History. 


1898 


Subscription 


Mediaeval history. 


1901 


In part by subscription 


Director of conservatory of music. 


1902 


Gift 


Mineralogy and chemistry. 


1904 


Bequest 


President's chair. 


1907 


Gift 


Practical theology. 









Considering these four colleges as fairly representative of the philanthropic 
foundations of the early national period, we may say of their development 
since the Civil War that in all cases this has been a period of rapid growth. 
The period of experimentation seems to have passed about war times, and 
these colleges to have been accepted as worthy of the full confidence. of phi- 
lanthropy. Permanent funds began to accumulate, slowly at first and then at 
an increasing rate, till now aU have a substantial income from such funds. 



THE LATE I^ATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 6*7 

At the present rate of growth, and with no more than normal expansion, these 
colleges will in time become practically independent of income from other 
sources. The endowment funds of these colleges are in large part available 
for general purposes, though considerable sums have been given for pro- 
fessorships, scholarships, and library. 

PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES OF THIS PERIOD. 

Down to 1865 practically every college had begun its existence with very 
smaU funds, usually with little or no real endowment, and had had to pass 
through a long financial struggle before it had won a clientage sufficient to 
guarantee its future. During the period here under discussion colleges con- 
tinued to be founded on that same basis. Drury College began in poverty in 
1873 and remained poor until 1892, when a gift of $50>000 laid the foundation 
of her present endowment of over a quarter of a million. Carleton College, 
chartered in 1867, began with $20,000 received from the citizens of Northfield 
and $10,000 received from the Congregational Churches of the State. In 1915 
this college possessed endowment funds of almost a million dollars. Wash- 
burn College, chartered in 1865, was started by small gifts from the Congre- 
gational Churches, but by 1915 had developed an endowment of over $360,000. 
These are but three from the many well-known illustrations of this type. 

1. THE PRIVATELY ENDOWED UNIVEESITY A NEW TYPE. 

In addition to this type, however, we see the beginning of a new era in 
educational philanthropy — an era in which a great and independently endowed 
university could spring into existence almost at once from the gifts of a single 
benefactor. 

Such schools did not have to go to the public and beg for funds, nor await 
any sort of social sanction. They secured their charters as corporations, 
erected their buildings, called together their faculties, organized their curricula, 
and opened their doors to students. They start, therefore, as educational and 
philanthropic, and we might also say, social experiments. Can such financially 
powerful corporations be trusted to keep faith with America's educational, 
economic, religious, and social ideals was the question in many minds at that 
time. 

An examination of the charters, articles of incorporation, and other founda- 
tion documents of these institutions should reveal something of their own 
conception of what their function was to be. Accordingly the following ex- 
cerpts from these sources are presented : 

1. EaJUCATIONAX AIMS. 

The charter of Vassar College was issued in 1861. Section 2 of this charter 
declares it to be the object and purpose of the corporation " To promote the 
education of young women in literature, science, and the arts." 

A fuller statement is to be found in Matthew Vassar's address to the trustees 
of the college, delivered on February 26, 1861, in which he says : 

I wish that the course of study should embrace at least the following partic- 
ulars : The English language and its literature ; other modern languages ; the 
ancient classics, as far as may be demanded by the spirit of the times; the 
mathematics, to such an extent as may be deemed advisable ; all the branches of 
natural science, with full apparatus, cabinets, collections, and conservatories 
for visible illustrations ; anatomy, physiology, and hygiene, with practical refer- 
ence to the laws of health of the sex ; intellectual philosophy ; the elements of 
political economy; some knowledge of the Federal and State Constitutions 



68 PHILANTHROPY IN" AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

and laws; moral science, particularly as bearing on the filial, conjugal, and 
parental relations; aesthetics, as treating of the beautiful in nature and art, 
and to be illustrated by an extensive gallery of art ; domestic economy, prac- 
tically taught, so far as possible, in order to prepare graduates readily to 
become skillful housekeepers ; last, and most important of all, the daily, system- 
atic reading and study of the Holy Scriptures as the only and all-sufficient 
rule of Christian faith and practice.* 

Cornell's charter, granted in 1865, says, in section 3 : 

The leading object of the corporation hereby created shall be to teach such 
branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts, 
incuding military tactics; in order to promote the liberal and practical educa- 
tion of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. 
But such other branches of science and knowledge may be embraced in the 
plan of instruction and investigation pertaining to the university as the 
trustees may deem useful and proper.^" 

In addition to this statement from the charter, we have the following words 
from Ezra Cornell, the founder :" 

I hope we have laid the foundation of an institution which shall combine prac- 
tical with liberal education, * * * j desire that this shall prove to be the 
beginning of an institution which shall furnish better means for the culture of 
all men, of every calling, of every aim; * * * training them to be more 
useful in their relations to the State, and to better comprehend their higher 
and holier relations to their families and their God. 

Finally, I trust we have laid the foundation of a university — " an institu- 
tion where any person can find instruction in any study." 

Johns Hopkins says in his will : 

I do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all the rest * * * of my real and 
personal estate to be held, used, and applied by such corporation in, for, and to 
its corporate purposes in accordance with the provision of its existing charter 
of incorporation, etc." 

In this brief and formal certificate of incorporation of August 24, 1867, we 
find the general declaration of purpose to be that of " Organizing a university 
for the promotion of education in the State of Maryland," etc." 

These general ideas of the purpose of Johns Hopkins University are made a 
bit more specific in the inaugural address of the first president in which he lays 
down 12 principles fairly well expressed in the following brief excerpts :" 

1. All sciences are worthy of promotion, etc. 

2. Religion has nothing to fear from science, and vice versa. 

3. Remote utility is quite as worthy to be thought of as immediate ad- 

vantage. 

4. As it is impossible for any university to encourage with equal freedom 

all branches of learning, a selection must be made by enlightened 
governors, and that selection must depend on the requirements and 
deficiencies of a given people in a given period. 

5. Teachers and pupils must be allowed great freedom in their method of 

work. 

In his next several principles he lays emphasis upon the importance of a 
broad liberal culture for all students ; upon research for professors, upon the 
influence of research upon instruction, and vice versa ; points out that honors 
must be bestowed sparingly and benefits freely ; and says that a university is 
a thing of slow growth and very liable to fall into ruts. 

» In Vassar, by Taylor, James Monroe, and Haight, Elizabeth Hazelton, Appendix II. 

«> Cornell University Register, 1868. 

" Founder's Address at the inaugural of President White in 1868, in Biography of 
Ezra Cornell, A. S. Barnes & Co., 1884, p. 199 ff. 

^ Johns Hopkins University — Charter, Extracts of Will, Officers, and By-Laws.. Balti- 
more, 1874. 
• " Published with subsequent amendments in the University Raster for 1918-19. 

"Addresses at the Inauguration of Daniel C. Gilman, as President of Johns Hopkiiis 
University, Baltimore, 1876. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 69 

The founding grant of Leland Stanford Junior University declares that it is 
" Its object to qualify its students for personal success and direct usefulness 
in life." 

And further : 

Its purposes, to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in be- 
half of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated 
by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of govern- 
ment as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness. 

In addition to work of instruction, the university was designed " to advance 
learning, the arts, and sciences." 

In the University of Chicago certificate of incorporation we find the aim of 
the foundation expressed in section 2 as follows : 

To provide, impart, and furnish opportunities for all departments of higher 
education to persons of both sexes on equal terms ; * * * to establish and 
maintain a university in which may be taught all branches of higher learning. 

Such are the educational aims of these institutions as they were conceived 
by the founders. 

2. EELIGIOUS AIMS. 

The religious emphasis is shown to some extent in these same documents. 

Vassar's charter makes no reference to religion, but Mr. Vassar, in the ad- 
dress above quoted, does. In addition to the reference to religion in the above 
quotation, he says : 

All sectarian infiuences should be carefully excluded ; but the training of our 
students should never be intrusted to the skeptical, the irreligious, or the im- 
moral. 

Cornell's charter makes specific reference to religion, as follows : 

Sec. 2. But at no time shall a majority of the board be of any one religious 
sect or of no religious sect. 

Sec. 3. And persons of every religious denomination shall be equally eligible 
to all offices and appointments. 

In Johns Hopkins' brief charter no reference is made to religion, but in 
President Oilman's address, as above quoted, we can see that questions of 
religion were to fix no limitations in the life of the university nt any point. 

Leland Stanford's foundation grant as amended in October, 1902, says : 

The university must be forever maintained upon a strictly nonpartisan and 
nonsectarian basis. 

The charter of the University of Chicago says : 

Sec. 3. At all times two-thirds of the trustees and also the president of the 
university and of said college shall be members of regular Baptist Churches 
* * * in this particular this charter shall be forever unalterable. 

No other religious test or particular religious profession shall ever be held as 
a requisite for election to said board or for admission to said university * * * 
or for election to any professorship or any place of honor or emolument in said 
corporation, etc. 

Such aims as these could not have been expressed in earlier college charters. 
The idea of educating young women in the sciences ; the idea of connecting 
science as taught in the college with the work of the farmer and mechanic ; 
the laboratory method of teaching ; the idea of investigation and research as a 
university function ; the slight general references to and the broad liberality 
in matters of religion ; these things could not have been written into the founda- 
tion documents of our colonial colleges. There is a marked contrast between 
the general tone and the actual ideas and ideals expressed here and those 
shown from colonial charters in Table 1 above. 



To PHILANTHROPE IF AMERICA:^ HIGHER EDUCATIOif. 

The new education is strongly suggested in almost every line of these docu- 
ments, and a careful analysis of the conditions placed upon the foundation 
gifts would show that very little is to be subtracted from the showing which 
the above quotations make. 

Mr. Rockefeller demanded that the Baptist Education Board should raise 
$400,000 to put with his gift of $600,000, his gift to become a permanent endow- 
ment for current expenses. The conditions of his next several large gifts were 
quite as simple. 

Matthew Vassar placed in the hands of his trustees securities worth $400,000 
with which to build a seminary and college for women. He explained what 
his notion of such a college was and then very modestly advised the board as to 
future use of the funds. 

Mr. Cornell had to meet the demands — not altogether reasonable — of the 
State of New York, and those of the national land-grant act of 1862 before he 
could give $500,000 to build a university. 

These are typical. These great fortunes were to build and endow a " college " 
or a " university," as the case might be, and no narrow limitations were placed 
upon the use of the gifts to those ends. With such large initial funds available, 
it is obvious that these institutions are in a position to reject any subsequent 
gift that does not meet the essential purposes for which the schools were 
founded. The aims laid down in their charters can be carried out without help 
if necessary," and it is especially noteworthy, therefore, that in no case has 
society failed to accept the foundation in the right spirit. Almost from the 
start the people made these projects their own, as was evidenced by the con- 
tributions which very soon began to flow into their treasuries from outside 
sources. 

3. TYPES OF EABLY CONDITIONAL GIFTS. 

Vassar College. — Vassar College was founded in 1861 and was opened to 
students in 1865. Mr. Vassar's first gift was $408,000. In 1864 he added a gift 
of $20,000, for an art collection, and in 1868, by his will, he canceled a $75,000 
debt for the college, and added $275,000 to establish a lectureship fund, a 
students' aid fund, a library and art cabinet fund, and a repair fund. The 
first important gift to come to Vassar from the outside was in 1871, when 
A. J. Fox gave $6,000 to establish the Fox scholarship. This was soon followed 
by two other gifts for scholarships and in 1879 by a gift of $6,000, and in 1882 
by another of $3,000, both for scholarships." 

In 1879 two of the founder's nephews agreed to build a laboratory of chem- 
istry and physics; in addition to which Matthew Vassar, jr., gave $50,000 for 
scholarships and $40,000 for two professorships. In 1890 an endowment fund 
of $100,000 was raised by subscriptions." 

IS Andrew D. White, in his Autobiography, Vol. I, p. 413, quotes the following statement 
from a trustee of Johns Hopkins University : " We at least have this in our favor ; we can 
follow out our own conceptions and convictions of what is best ; we have no need of obey- 
ing the injunctions of any legislature, the beliefs of any religious body, or the clamors 
of any press ; we are free to do what we really believe best, as slowly and in such manner 
as we see fit" 

'* In accepting some of these scholarships the college bound itself for all time to edu- 
cate a girl on each of the foundations. That was possible when money was worth 7 per 
cent, and the cost of such education $400 ; but as money fell to 4 1 to 5 per cent, and the 
cost of such education rose to $500, such gifts became liabilities in place of assets. This, 
however, was no fault of philanthropy, but due rather to shortsighted management on 
the part of the college. Such management was not, however, without precedent. See 
discussion of Oberlin scholarships, p. 46. 

1'' These facts were taken from Tailor and Haight's Vassar, and from President's Re- 
ports and Catalogues. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 71 

This covers practically all the gifts to Vassar during its first 25 years of 
work. Certainly the conditions named have been in line with the main purposes 
of the founder. 

Cornell University. ^At Cornell University, founded in 1865, we have a some- 
what different situation. The half million dollar gift of the founder was very 
thoroughly bound to fulfill certain conditions laid down by the State legisla- 
ture." The university started and grew against serious opposition of almost 
every sort, and almost immediately gifts began to be received. 

In 1871 Henry W. Sage gave $250,000 to establish and endow a women's col- 
lege; John McGraw erected the McGraw Building, at a cost of about $100,000; 
Hiram Sibley presented a building and equipment for the college of mechanic 
arts at a cost of over $50,000 ; President White built the President's House, 
at a cost of some $60,000 ; and Dean Sage endowed the chapel which had been 
built by a gift of Henry W. Sage. These are typical of many other early 
gifts which produced a phenomenally rapid growth of the university." 

John Hopkins University. — Johns Hopkins opended its doors in 1876, hav- 
ing been chartered in 1867. Almost immediately its large foundation began 
to be supplemented by gifts and bequests. In his will, dated February 26, 1876, 
Dr. Henry W. Baxley left $23,836 to found a medical professorship. In the 
same year a small gift was received for a scholarship, and this was followed 
by several others during the next few years. Large and important book col- 
lections, including a large German law library for Heidelberg, were contributed 
to the library very soon after it was opened, and two $10,000 fellowships were 
contributed in 1887. Numerous small gifts are also recorded, but these are 
fully typical of the conditional gifts to Johns Hopkins during her first two 
decades.^" 

Chicago University. — ^Among the early gifts to the University of Chicago 
after it was chartered in 1890 was a site for the college by Marshall Field 
and a million- dollar gift from Mr. Rockefeller, $800,000 of the latter to be used 
as a permanent fund for the support of nonprofessional graduate instruction 
and fellowships, $100,000 to be used as a permanent fund for the endowment 
of theological instruction in the divinity school of the university, and $100,000 
to be used in the construction of buildings for the divinity school. In 1891 
the trustees of the William B. Ogden estate began proceedings which ended 
in a gift of nearly $600,000 for the Ogden Graduate School of Science. In 
1898 Silas B. Cobb gave a $150,000 recitation building, and in this same year 
three other large gifts for buildings were received. Numerous other gifts, such 
as an astronomical observatory, a physical laboratory, a chemistry building, 
an oriental museum, followed within a few years, as also did large sums for 
endowment. 

Leland Stanford Junior University. — At Leland Stanford Junior University, 
opened in 1891 on the largest initial foundation gift yet made to an American 
institution of higher learning, numerous valuable gifts were made to the 
library and museum from the start. The half-million dollar jewel fund for 
the endowment of the library was the gift of Mrs. Stanford in 1905. Other 
large gifts from Thomas Welton Stanford restored the museum, which had 
been destroyed by the earthquake in 1906, and added an art museum and a 

" By the charter the university was made subject to visitation of the regents of 
the University of New York, and the trustees were made personally liable for any debt 
above $50,000. It also made the founding gift of Mr. Cornell absolutely unconditional. 

" For these facts, see President White's Autobiography, and W. T. Hewett's Cornell 
University, a History, Vol. Ill, Appendix. 

=» See A List of Gifts and Bequests Received by the John Hopkins University, 1876- 
1891, Baltimore, 1892. 



72 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



valuable art collection. Several prize scholarship, fellowship, and lecture- 
ship funds were also among the early gifts. 

We may say, then, that these institutions did receive gifts from the out- 
side, and that very soon after they v^-ere founded. We may say that the 
conditions of these gifts were unquestionably in accord with the essential 
aims set forth in the charters of the schools. In other words, these projects 
met the real test and passed it, and having received society's sanction they 
have joined the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oberlin^ Amherst, and the 
long list of institutions which these names suggest. 

4. ANALYSIS OF GIFTS TO TWO UNIVEKSITIES OF THIS GKOOP. 

It is possible to add to this description something of the financial history 
of two of these universities. Tables 30 and 31 give us a fairly complete 
account of the income to the University of Chicago and to Cornell University 
at intervals of five years down to 1915. Any one of the columns of these 
tables is instructive. All point to the phenomenal growth of these univer- 
sities. The income from tuition shows the rapid growth of the student 
bodies, and when compared with the column showing the total income it is 
seen that throughout Cornell's history tuition has furnished from one-fourth 
to one-seventh of the total annual income, while at the University of Chicago 
this percentage is from one-third to one-fifth. The income from productive 
funds in both tables shows a steady and rapid increase almost from the start, 
and at Cornell has furnished from two to six and even nine times the income 
produced by tuition. 

The gifts column in Table 31 shows that gifts have become, subsequently 
to 1890, an extremely important and dependable source of income. It should 
be added that an examination of the treasurer's reports shows that a large 
percentage of these gifts to Cornell have been going into the permanent 
funds of the university. 

In Table 30 we have a further analysis of the benefactions to the Uni- 
versity of Chicago after 1906, from which we are able to see the extent to 
which gifts are being received for enlargement of plant, for endowment, and 
for current expenses, respectively, from which it is evident that a very large 
percentage of all gifts go into the permanent funds. 

Table 30. — Income of University of Chicago at 5-year intervals from 1890 

to 1915.^ 



Dates. 



From student fees. 



Tiiition. 



Other 

student 

fees. 



From 

productive 

funds. 



From private benefactions for- 



Plant. 



Endow- 
ment. 



Current 
expenses. 



From 

other 

sources. 



Total 
income. 



1890. 
1895. 
1900. 
1905. 
1910. 
1915. 



$130, 000 

294,402 

504, 554 
588,721 I 193,989 
708,175 217,838 



$140, 000 

207, 620 

336, 144 

774, 246 

1, 094, 254 



$2, 127, 083 



2 $1,634, 910 
273,642 
352, 193 



1,563,695 
579, 873 
867, 048 
784, 303 



2 $388,270 
53,635 

7,885 



$205, 000 
30,280 
47,607 
46,687 
103, 880 



$1,365,000 
2,095,997 
1, 468, 178 
2, 793, 968 
3, 268, 508 



1 Data eompUed from United States Commissioner's Reports and from the reports of the university 
president. 

2 In 1907. 



THE LATE IsTATIONAL PERIOD, ISGS-l&lS, 



73 



Table 31. — Financial exhibit of income of Cornell University at five-year inter- 
vals from 1865 to 1915^ 



Years. 


Tuition fees. 


Other 
receipts 

from 
students. 


Income of 

investments. 


Productive 
funds. 


All other 
sources. 


Total. 


1865-66 












$9,000 


1868-69 


$33,348 

15, 105 

18,545 

17, 050 

46,000 

114, 277 

155,003 

251, 031 

476, 400 

535,346 

622, 575 






$130, 000 




76,744 


1874 


$1,993 
1,637 
2,719 
18,502 
26,736 
38, 413 
57,311 


$86,666 
73,662 
186, 907 
275,028 
314, 993 
376,033 
413,629 
428, 562 
644,637 
709,777 


$9, 203 
13,314 
10,700 
22,775 
55, 931 
40,849 
122,915 
119,624 
346,595 
409,826 


106 301 


1879. 




107 158 


1884 




217, 377 


1889 




362, 304 


1894 


112,595 
64,855 
485,449 
183,252 
4,376,103 
201,484 


624, 531 


1899 


675, 153 


1904. 


1,330,336 
1, 460, 610 


1909 


1914 


45,334 
183,975 


6,790,260 
3, 161, 381 


1915 







1 Data to 1904 from Hewett's Cornell University, and subsequent to 1904 from Reports of the United 
States Commissioner of Education. 

From these figures it is evident that the scale upon which these institutions 
were founded has been fairly maintained as their scale of growth. Chicago's 
income from permanent funds is furnishing an increasing proportion of her 
annual income, while the opposite appears to be true of Cornell. The latter is 
explained by the fact that Cornell has in recent years been receiving relatively 
large annual appropriations from the State, the city, and the United States. 
What we have noted above regarding the endowment funds of the colonial and 
early national colleges, then, is equally true of these younger institutions. 
They are rapidly building up a source of support that will, under normal ex- 
pansion, make them independent. 

If we ask regarding the further conditions placed upon these vast gifts to 
higher education, we have but to read over the lists published in the year- 
books, in magazines, and in official university publications to see that they 
are rarely out of line with the main lines of growth in the institution receiving 
them. More than half of Cornell's permanent funds belong to the general 
funds of the university or to some one of the schools or departments." 

Of the great foundations of this period then we may say : Financially they 
are practically independent from the start; each is, in the main, the gift of 
one man ; their charters grant them' almost unlimited freedom to become any- 
thing they may choose to call college or university ; they are very definitely 
nonsectarian and nonpolitical, but one, Chicago, is definitely fostered by a 
church ; they cultivate liberality in matters of religion ; they stress original 
research as a professorial function ; and, in the face of real opposition in some 
cases, as well as the natural tendency to distrust such large corporations, the 
gifts they have received from the start show that they have been accepted by 
the public as fully as have the most ancient or most religious foundations of 
the past. All are rapidly building up permanent endowment funds which 
promise a large degree of financial independence in the future, and, judged by 
our best standards, all are not only fully law-abiding, but each in its own way 
is exercising wide leadership in the field of higher education. 

PHUiANTHROPY THROUGH RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SOCIETIES. 

As explained in Chapter III, religious education societies arose very early 
In the last century in response to a growing demand for trained ministers, 



=^A full list of these funds with date and amount of each, and with fairly complete 
statement of conditions controlling the use of their income, is published in the annual 
report of the treasurer for 1915-16. 



74 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



which demand the colleges were failing to meet. They organized and were 
chartered as corporations to aid in the education of young men for this calling. 
They operated mainly by direct aid to the student, though in some cases grants 
were made to colleges. Most of the societies did some work of this kind, even 
going so far as to found colleges in some instances.^ 

Most of these societies survived the period of the Rebellion and have con- 
tinued, separately or in combination, to carry on this work to the present time. 
Many other societies have also been organized, several new ones having ap- 
peared very recently. The old methods of assistance have continued in force, 
and permanent endowment funds have in several cases grovra to importance, 
and it is plain that the influence of these organizations is becoming greater. At 
present they are organized on denominational lines, though originally many of 
them were not so. 

1. THE AMEBICAN EDUCATION SOCIETT. 

Something of the extent of their service to higher education may be seen 
from the following tables, which are typical of the best work that is being done 
by these societies. Table 32 shows the annual income of the American Educa- 
tion Society, the number of students assisted, the amount of permanent funds 
possessed, the total annual grant to colleges, and, for a few years, the number of 
colleges receiving these grants. The first two columns are a continuation of 
columns one and two in Table 14. 



Table 32. 



-Financial statistics of the American Education Society at intervals 
of five years from 1866 to 1915. 



Dates. 


Amount 
received. 


Students 
aided. 


Amoimt 
of per- 
manent 
fund. 


Grants 

to 
colleges .1 


Colleges 
aided. 


1865 


?21,613 
27, 120 
93, 713 
64,097 
60, 124 
101,425 
141, 189 
120, 047 
144,036 
129,555 
89,639 


253 
354 
413 
367 
309 
359 
335 
138 
192 
231 


$81,000 
81,500 
81,500 
83,499 
103, 418 
112, 622 
225,342 






1870 






1875 


2 162, 375 
38,983 
8 88, 137 
58,336 
26,534 
28,861 
7,849 
22, 731 
10, 521 


8 


1880 


11 


1885 


»8 


1890 




1895 




1900 




1905 


281, 114 
282, 124 




1910 




1915 


4 











1 Usually much larger sums were given to academies than to colleges. 

2 In this year (1875) the society joined with the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological 
Education, was chartered, and became the American College and Education Society. 

' In 1884. 

If we turn to Table 14 we will see that this society grew rapidly from its 
beginning in 1815 to vs^ell into the thirties, after which it slowly declined until 
after the Civil War, when it again entered upon a period of prosperity which 
has continued practically to the present time. 

In 1874 the American Education Society, which had worked mainly by 
grants to students, was combined with the Society for the Promotion of Col- 
legiate and Theological Education in the West, which had operated by making 
grants to colleges.^ This shift in emphasis appears in column 4 under " grants 
to colleges." 

The rise in income along with the decline in number of students and colleges 
aided is explained by the fact that increasing attention has been given to the 



^ As when the Western Collie Society founded Illinois College In 1843. 
» See p. 50 ff. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-191S. 



75 



work of academies, pastorates, and missionary schools.^' The society has not 
only prospered, but its total service to education has increased. 

2. THE PRESBYTERIAN EDUCATION BOARD. 

Table 33 continues for the board of education of the Presbyterian Church the 
facts shown for that society in Table 14. In addition, this table shows the 
number of churches from which contributions were received, and the maximum 
amount and the total amount of aid granted to students. 

Table 33. — Financial statistics of the Presbyterian Board of Education at inter- 
vals of five years.^ 



Years. 


Number 
of con- 
tributing 
churches. 


Receipts 
from all 
sources. 


Number 
of candi- 
dates 
aided. 


Maxi- 
mum, 
amount 
of aid. 


Total 
amount 
paid to 
candi- 
dates. 


1866 




$46,751 
52,276 
68,179 


296 
391 
496 
424 
619 
839 
1,031 
716 
658 
843 
776 
895 




$41,027 
40,897 


1870 




$150 
150 
100 
110 
100 
80 
80 
100 
100 
75-150 
75-150 


1875 




63,450 


1^880 


2,208 


40,861 
63, 314 


1885 


2, 632 72! 7.^3 


1890 


3,008 
3,165 
3,523 
3,788 
4,958 
5,431 
5,504 


84,936 
97,278 
77,763 
119, 104 
148, 503 
164,459 
203, 592 


67, 651 


1895 


79,071 
51,499 


1900 


1905 


64,535 


1910 


81, 414 


1915 


79,815 
86,902 


1917 




Total 




4,864,402 






3, 147, 537 











1 statistics from the 98th An. Rep. of the board, in 1917; the Cumberland Presbyterian Education Society 
united with this board in 1906; their first joint report is in 1907. 

First of all, it will be seen that since 1878 the jumber of churches con- 
tributing to the funds of this society has practically trebled. This in- 
crease in the society's clientage has been very gradual, and an examination 
of the receipts shows that the average contribution per church has remained 
fairly constant or perhaps increased slightly. If we examine the three last 
columns of this table we see that its service has also increased. The number 
of students aided has increased from 296 in 1866 to 1,037 in 1896 ; then, after 
a decline for a few years, has risen again to 895 in 1917. During these years 
the amount of aid per student has fluctuated somewhat but on the whole has 
declined, while the total of grants has varied somewhat with the number 
of students aided. 

3. KETHODIST EPISCOPAL CHtlBCH BOARD. 

The board of education of the Methodist Episcopal Church took definite 
form in 1864. Its charter empowered it to aid young men desiring to enter 
missionary work or the ministry, and to aid biblical or theological schools, as 
well as universities, colleges, and academies then (1869) under the patronage 
of the church. No gifts were to be made for buildings and no aid was to 
be given to any school not then in existence, except " the board shall first have 
been consulted and shall have approved of the establishment and organization 
of such institution."" Down to 1908 it has rendered aid to higher education 



«* See An. Rep. of the Treasurer, 1916. 

26 See the original charter of 1869, published in the 1904 report, 

111512°— 22 6 



76 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



entirely by making loans direct to students, for the reason that it had practically 
no funds for work of a broader scope. '^ Since that time it has, in addition 
to this, made grants to colleges. Table 34 shows the annual receipts from 
gifts, the annual outlay in the form of loans to students, the annual grants 
to institutions, and, for some years, the number of students receiving these 
loans. From these figures it is evident that this society has made a remarkably 
rapid growth. From its beginning in 1873 to 1915 the board claims to have 
assisted a total of 22,392 different students." That includes those in the 
academies and theological schools as well as those in college. 



Table 34.- 



-Financial statistics of the board of education of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, 1868-1915, at intervals of five years} 



Years. 


Amount 
received 
less in- 
terest on 
permanent 
funds. 


Amount of 
loans to 
students. 


Number 

of students 

aided. 


'Amount of 
aid to in- 
stitutions. 


1868 


$84,000 

2,141 

5,079 

38,852 

64 914 

76, .529 

11-1,651 

130,640 

164,608 

200, 158 








1875 


$10,095 
8,000 
31,684 
42,173 
70,596 
81,749 
108,658 
115,400 
123,696 






1880 






1885 






1890 






1895 


1,540 




1900 




1905 






1910 


2.072 
2,189 


$20,496 
43,528 


1915 




Total 


3,338,725 


2,634,034 




260,072 







* Compiled from annual and quadrennial reports of the board. 



Table 35. 



-Biennial receipts of the hoard of education of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church in the United States of America. 



Periods. 


Amount 
received. 


Periods. 


Amount 
received. 


Periods. 


Amount 
received. 


1887-1889 


$6,409 
10, 140 
14,181 
15.288 
19,878 


1897-1899 


$21,012 
27, 070 
41,105 
40,635 
54,234 


1907-1909 


$104,866 
88 859 


1889-1891 


1899-1901 


1900-1911 


1891-1893 


1901-1903 


1911-1913 


75, 656 
89,746 
95,738 


1893-1895 


1903-1905 


1913-1915 


1895-1897 


1905-1907 


1915-1917 









4. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH BOARD. 



In 1885 the board of education of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
United States of America was organized and has operated continuously since. 
Table 35 shows the resources of the board biennially since its foundation. Its 
method of work has been that of making contributions to various educational 
institutions. According to treasurers' reports, gifts to colleges were sometimes 
for the " budget " of the school and sometimes for a specific item, as interest 
on a debt, special endowment, scholarship, etc. For the past decade reports 
show that at least seven institutions were regular recipients of aid from this 
board, and it appears from reports to have been responsible for founding, and 
also for refusing to found, new institutions, which together indicates that it is 
In some sense a supervising agency. 

=* See discussion of this in the annual report of the board for 1904. 
« An. Rep., 1910. 



THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 77 

5. WORK OF THESE SOCIETIES EVALUATED. 

While it is not possible to state just what proportion of the funds of these 
societies has gone into higher education, it is clear that all effort has been 
aimed directly or indirectly at training for the ministry. One has but to 
glance at the columns, and especially at their totals, to realize that these 
organizations have meant much to the growth of higher education in this 
country. The income of the Presbyterian board for 1917 is approximately that 
of such colleges as Wells and Beloit. 

The showing for these four societies or boards is probably typical of the 
best that is being done by these organizations. Undoubtedly thousands of 
young men and women have received secondary or collegiate training who 
would otherwise have received little or no schooling. The ministry has 
brought many into its service by this means. These societies have saved 
colleges which were virtually bankrupt. By small gifts they have stimulated 
much larger ones. They have exercised supervision over colleges under their 
patronage by refusing aid to those which show no promise. They have by 
these and other means attempted standardization, and it should be added that 
the Methodist board began to exercise this influence very early .'^ They have 
through church pulpits and Sunday schools brought the problems of college 
education to the attention of a large percentage of our population. More 
recently coordination of the efforts of these many boards, through the work 
of the council of church boards of education, is resulting in a more intelli- 
gent placement of new foundations. Doubtless we should add that these boards 
have helped to save denominationalism among churches, whatever that may 
be worth. 

Most of them seem to be worthy aims, if the cost has not been too great. 
In opposition to this kind of philanthrophy it is sometimes argued that a 
young man who is put through college by the aid of these boards naturally 
feels obligated to enter the ministry regardless of the fact that he discovers 
in the course of his training that he is better fitted for some other calling; 
that, as a rule, academy students are not in a position to decide upon a voca- 
tion ; that the scholarship method, unless appointments are based upon ability, 
is not the best way to stimulate scholarly efforts ; and that the cost of admin- 
istering the funds is too large.^° 

It is clear at any rate that these boards are occupying a much stronger 
position among the churches than formerly. Their supervision is real super- 
vision, when it is possible for them to close up such of their own weaker insti- 

*8 In 1892 general conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Cliurch authorized a " uni- 
versity senate " to formulate a standard of requirements for graduation to baccalaureate 
degree in their church schools, and the board was authorized to classify as collies only 
such schools as met those requirements. See Appendix to Annual Report for 1892, and 
for the general conference for 1896, p. 736. The colleges are classified on this basis in 
the annual reports of the board for 1895. 

^ In 1875 approximately 11 per cent of the expenditures of the American College and 
Education Society was for the cost of administration. The cost of administration for the 
Methodist board amounted to more than 16 per cent of the total expenditures in 1889, 
and about 27 per cent in 1915, and the same figure for the Presbyterian board in 1888 
was about 10 per cent. Of course these are only rough figures. The administrative offi- 
cers are often engaged in ways that are directly useful in the development of higher educa- 
tion. The application of college standards by the administrative officers of the Methodist 
board is a fair illustration. The making of educational surveys, the gathering and pub- 
lication of educational information, the vast amounts of correspondence in connection with 
gifts and loans, and the advice to colleges concerning their educational and financial de- 
velopment, are all illustrations. In a sense these boards are all engaged in propaganda 
work, the results of which it is difficult to evaluate. 



78 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEBICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

rations as they may decide are no longer useful.** These boards are not only 
taking a scientific attitude toward this problem, but they are studying their col- 
leges to see what are needed and what are not needed, and are advocating, and ' 
in many cases effecting, the close of the superfluous institutions." 

6. COUNCIL OF CHUECH BOABDS OF EDUCATION. 

There is one feature of this whole movement which seems to promise very 
great possibilities for good. That is the recently organized council of church 
boards of education. This council was organized in 1911, and has for its pur- 
pose a more intelligent cooperation among churches in the building and main- 
tenance of church colleges.'' Possibly it was the influence of the more powerful 
philanthropic agencies, together with the growing prestige of the great pri- 
vately endowed and State universities, that brought the small church college 
to realize that its influence was beginning to wane. 

This movement toward cooperation is one important outcome of the vigorous 
discussions of the place of the small college in American higher education. 
These boards knew many of the weak points in the church college situation 
and knew that duplication of effort was probably their greatest weakness. 

At an informal conference of the secretaries of seven church boards of edu- 
cation, held in New York City, February 18, 1911, it was decided that a second 
conference should be held at which carefully prepared papers should be pre- 
sented. 

Such a conference was held and resulted in the following declaration of 
principles: (1) A large degree of cooperation between educational boards is 
practicable and desirable. " Through them we might secure a better geographi- 
cal distribution of denominational colleges * * * ^ proper standardization 
of institutions," etc. (2) The denominations should offer loyal support to the pub- 
lic-school system. (3) The legitimacy and the absolute necessity of a certain 
number of denominational academies, occupying strategic positions in territory 
not fully occupied by the public high schools. (4) There should be a direct ap- 
proach by the denominations to the problem of religious instruction at State 
university centers.'^ 

The council took permanent form at the conclusion of this meeting and has 
since published annual reports of its work. Several practical steps toward 
cooperation between the boards have already been taken, and, though its place 
as a standardizing agency may remain advisory only, it is in that capacity that 
its influence as a philanthropic agency offers substantial promise. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 

We may characterize this period in the growth of higher education in 
America as follows : 

The question of State versus private endowment of higher education has been 
fought through and settled favorably to both methods; the church has con- 
tinued its work of founding small colleges; several very large institutions (in 
a sense a new type) have been founded by the fortunes of single individuals 
and have not looked to the church for support ; a number of large foundations, 

so See Rep. Bd. of Educ. Meth. Epis. Ch., 1915, p. 23, for illustration. 

" Black Hills College, 1903 ; Charles City College, University of the Pacific, and Port 
Worth University, 1911 ; Mount Pleasant German College, 1908, are a few of the Method- 
ist institutions that have been closed in this way. 

^ The constitution of the council is printed in the Second Annual Report of the Coun- 
cil of Church Boards of Education. 

»» See First An. Rep. of Council of Church Boards of Ed. in U. S. America. 



THE LATE NATIONAL, PERIOD, 1865-1918. 79 

the aim of which is research and general educational stimulus and supervision, 
have been created; and a new philosophy of education, which has found ex- 
pression in the organization, administration, and management of our institu- 
tions of higher learning, has been worked out. 

In opening up new territory to higher education during this period, the State 
has for the most part done the pioneering, thus reversing the custom of pre- 
Civil War days, when the church school led the way. 

From a general view of the work of philanthropy in higher education, as 
gathered from the Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, we 
have seen that philanthropy has gradually built up a vast fund for the per- 
manent endowment of higher learning ; that from this source, together with 
annual gifts, philanthropy is still bearing decidedly the larger part of the burden 
of higher education, though the State is assuming a relatively larger portion of 
this burden each year ; and that tuition has covered practically the same per- 
centage of the total annual cost from 1872 to the present. We have seen that, 
on an average, more than half of all gifts have gone to " permanent endowment 
and general purposes " ; that there is a tendency in recent years for a larger 
proportion to go into the permanent funds ; and that from one-eighth to one-half 
of the annual gifts have been for the development of the school plant. We have 
seen that in the seventies and eighties professorships and libraries fared well ; 
that scholarships became increasingly important, and that the indigent never 
were quite forgotten ; and, finally, that the percentage of all gifts that have been 
made without condition through the years has ranged from 4 to 26 per cent. 

From other data we have seen that philanthropy has been almost solely re- 
sponsible for the development of separate colleges for women, and for theo- 
logical schools ; that it has played a large part in the development of medical 
schools, and a small part in technical and law schools ; and that private enter- 
prise and the State have been almost entirely responsible for the development 
of schools of dentistry and pharmacy, while the State has been largely respon- 
sible for technical schools. 

From data in the various annual publications from 1893 to 1915, inclusive, 
we have seen that education has received 43 per cent of all gifts of $5,000 or 
over in the United States ; that charity is education's largest competitor, with 
37 per cent ; while " religious purposes " balances with museums and public im- 
provements at approximately 9 per cent each, and libraries at 2 per cent. 
Roughly, and relatively speaking, we may say that during the first half of this 
period the amount of gifts for education made a slight gain, since which it has 
suffered a steady decline. Similarly religious purposes and museums have suf- 
fered a substantial though irregular decline from the start, while libraries have 
made a continuous decline from the first. These changes are in practically all 
cases only relative. 

Among the old colonial colleges we have seen that the entire burdesn has 
fallen upon philanthropy and student fees, the States having offered no assist- 
ance whatever through this period. In spite of this, gifts have increased greatly. 
Conditional gifts have become somewhat more popular, but slightly the opposite 
is true with respect to gifts for permanent funds. Gifts to libraries and to 
indigent students have declined, while professorships have remained approx- 
imately as before. 

In the colleges of the early national period we see the same rapid growth of 
funds from philanthropy as noted for the older institutions. In the colleges of 
this period the rapid growth of permanent funds is especially noticeable, and, 
further, the larger portion of these gifts are for the general fund. With this 
growth of general endowment have also prospered professorships, scholarships, 
and libraries. 



80 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

As to the colleges of this period, no study was made of what we think of as 
the small church college. The work of this character is undoubtedly important, 
but there is little if anything new coming from it. The real contribution of the 
period is the group of large foundations. With one or two exceptions these are 
not church-fostered and not State-fostered institutions as all their ancestors 
have been. They encourage liberality in religion, they offer the most liberal 
scientific education for women, they encourage the use of museum and laboratory 
methods of teaching, and they foster research as a university function. 

An examination of the financial history of this type of institution shows that 
in all cases they have been promptly taken over by the people and are now 
among the most important recipients of gifts in this country. Their rate of 
growth has been very great almost from the start, and all our evidence goes to 
show that these powerful financial corporations, planted in the midst of small 
colleges and accepted in some quarters with misgiving, have not only kept 
faith with earlier social, religious, and educational aims, but, in the readjust- 
ment of those aims to our rapidly expanding age, they have shown capacity 
proportionate to their great financial power, and what was to some a doubtful 
experiment is a success. 

Through this period we have seen the continuation of the work of church 
boards of education, or religious education societies. These are rapidly increas- 
ing in numbers, there being a tendency for each church to have its own board. 
Their work has been conducted along two main lines. They have contributed 
scholarships either by gift or by loan, and they have made grants to colleges 
to meet either a general or some special need. Their chief aim has continued 
to be the development of a trained ministry, though the development of col- 
leges in which all students will be kept in a proper religious atmosphere is 
scarcely secondary. The evidence presented shows that these societies have 
prospered. They are contributing direct assistance to many hundreds of stu- 
dents every year ; they are making grants direct to colleges, grants which, 
though small, have often been directly responsible for larger gifts ; they have 
in some measure exercised supervision over the founding of new schools, over 
curricula, and finance ; and by their cooperation through the council of church 
boards of education they promise much more for the future. 



Chapter V. 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 



A NEW PHILANTHROPIC ENTERPRISE. 

A type of philanthropic educational enterprise peculiar to the period just 
discussed is that of the large foundation whose purpose is not alone, nor even 
primarily, that of teaching but rather that of supplementing and assisting 
established institutions of education. 

One can scarcely read the founding documents of these institutions without 
being struck first of all with the very wide scope of service which they have 
undertaken. The Peabody Fund promoted popular education in the South by 
cooperation with State and local officials. The Jeanes, the Slater, and the 
Phelps-Stokes Fund have been devoted to the problems of education for negroes. 
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has concerned 
itself with salaries, pensions, and insurance for college professors. The Gen- 
eral Education Board has helped along several of these lines and paid much 
attention to educational investigations, and especially to a more substantial 
endowment of existing institutions. The Sage Foundation has contributed lib- 
erally by investigation, research, and publication. 

These foundations, therefore, appear as a really new type of philanthropic 
enterprise in education, with church education boards as their only possible 
precedent, and though, as compared with the educational assets of some of our 
great cities, or with sums which numerous States are utilizing annually, or 
even with a few of our universities, they are not remarkably large, yet they 
are large enough to represent very great possibilities, and society can not afford 
to take them lightly. Can our country assimilate this new enterprise, is a ques- 
tion that might have been asked when Mr. Peabody and his successors began 
pouring out their millions in the development of this new business, the business 
of educational philanthropy. 

The church college was antagonistic toward the State institutions of higher 
education when the latter began to grow rapidly into great universities, and 
they were also quite skeptical of the great privately endowed universities, lest 
they might be Godless schools. The State, the church, and the individual philan- 
thropist were in a fairly real sense competitors in the field, and it was but 
natural that the old pioneer, the church college, should at first be jealous of 
what seemed to be its special prerogative. This rivalry has continued, but it 
has become increasingly friendly with passing years. 

These new foundations, however, do not enter the field as rivals, but, instead, 
aim definitely to supplement and to cooperate with forces already at work. 
What work will they supplement and with whom will they cooperate are 
extremely practical questions which they must face, and also which the col- 

81 



82 PHILAI7THR0PY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

leges and schools must face. Giving help to my competitor is in a sense the 
equivalent of doing harm to me. This was precisely the point of danger. 

THE STATED PURPOSES OF THESE FOUNDATIONS. 

First, then, what are the aims of these foundations, and what limitations are 
placed upon the funds which they are to manage? For these we must turn to 
their founding documents. 

1. THE PEABODY EDUCATION FUND. 

The Peabody Education Fund, the gift of George Peabody, of Massachusetts, 
was established in 1867, and amounted finally to $3,000,000. In a letter to 15 
men whom he had chosen to act as his trustees, Mr. Peabody sets forth his 
plans and purposes, which were later embodied in the act of incorporation. 
He says : * 

I give to you * * * the sum of one million dollars, to be by you and 
your successors held in trust, and the income thereof used and applied, in your 
discretion, for the promotion and encouragement of intellectual, moral, or 
industrial education among the young of the more destitute portions of the 
Southern and Southwestern States of our Union, my purpose being that the 
benefits intended shall be distributed among the entire population, without 
other distinction than their needs and the opportunities of usefulness to them. 

In the following paragraph he empowers them to use 40 per cent of the 
principal sum within the next two years, then adds another million to the 
gift, grants the trustees power to incorporate, and further says : 

In case two-thirds of the trustees shall at any time, after the lapse of 30 
years, deem it expedient to close this trust, and of the funds which at that 
time shall be in the hands of yourselves and your successors to distribute not 
less than two-thirds among such educational and literary institutions, or for 
such educational purposes as they may determine, in the States for whose 
benefit the income is now appointed to be used. The remainder to be dis- 
tributed by the trustees for educational or literary purposes wherever they 
may deem it expedient. 

This letter, together with a later one in which he says, " I leave all the de- 
tails of management to their (the trustees') own discretion," were embodied 
in the preamble to the charter later issued by the State of New York. 

In June, 1869, Mr. Peabody addressed to the board a letter of appreciation 
for their service in carrying out his trust, in which he conveyed a gift of 
securities worth nearly a million and a half dollars.* 

These letters certainly stand out as among the most remarkable documents 
in the history of educational philanthropy to this time. There were only the 
most general restrictions on the funds, and these were to end after 30 years, 
leaving the trustees almost entirely free to dispose of the entire fund. The 
best proof of their great distinction, as we shall see, lies in the fact that they 
have been the precedent for all similar subsequent foundations. 

2. THE JOHN F. SIATEE FUND. 

The second of these foundations was the John F. Slater Fund for the Educa- 
tion of Freedmen, established on March 4, 1882, by a gift of $1,000,000. In a 
letter of date March 4, 1882, Mr. Slater invites 10 men to form a corporation 
for the administration of the fund, and in this letter he sets forth the pur- 
poses he vrtshes to achieve, together with the restrictions he places upon the 
gift He names as the general object — 

» See Proc. of Trustees of Peabody EJduc. EMnd, Vol. I, p. 1 fiC 
» Peabody Educ. Fund, Proc, Vol. II, p. 142 ffi. 



GEEAT EDUCATIOlSrAL FOUNDATIONS. 83 

the uplifting of the lately emancipated population of the Southern States, and 
their posterity, by conferring on them the blessings of Christian education. 

He seeks not only— 

for their own sake, but also for the safety of our common country [to provide 
them] with the means of such education as shall tend to make them good men 
and good citizens — education in which the instruction of the mind in the common 
branches of secular learning shall be associated with training in just notions of 
duty toward God and caan, in the light of the Holy Scriptures. 

The means to be used, he says, " I leave to the discretion of the corporation." 
He then suggests " the training of teachers from among the people " and " the 

encouragement of such institutions as are most efEectually useful in promoting 

this training of teachers." 
Further on he adds : 

I purposely leave to the corporation the largest liberty of making such 
changes in the methods of applying the income of the fund as shall seem from 
time to time best adapted to accomplish the general object herein named. 

He then, obviously drawing upon English experience, warns them against 
the possible evils of such endowments, and states that after 33 years they are 
to be free to dispose of the capital of the fund — 

to the establishment of foundations subsidiary to these already existing institu- 
tions of higher education, in such wise as to make the educational advantages 
of such institutions more freely accessible to poor students of the colored race. 

Finally, he urges the avoidance of any partisan, sectional, or sectarian bias 
in the use of the gift, and closes with reference to the success of the Peabody 
Education Fund as having encouraged him to establish this foundation.* 

This letter was embodied in the charter issued by New York State in April, 
1882. In all the fundamentals these documents are a fair copy of the charter 
and instruments of gift in the case of the Peabody Education Fund. 

3. THE CAKNEGIE INSTITUTION. 

The third of these foundations to take form was the Carnegie Institution 
of Washington. The trust deed by which it was established is of date January 
28, 1902, and transfers to the trustees securities worth $10,000,000. (This sum 
has since been more than doubled.) In this instrument of gift* Mr. Carnegie 
declares it to be his purpose to found in Washington an institution which, with 
the corporation of other institutions — 

shall in the broadest and most liberal manner encourage investigation, research, 
and discovery— show the application of knowledge to the improvement of man- 
kind, provide such buildings, laboratories, books, and apparatus as may be 
needed; and afford instruction of an advanced character to students properly 
qualified to profit thereby. 

It aims, he says : 

1. To promote original research. 

2. To discover the exceptional man in every department of study * * * 

and enable him to make the work for which he seems specially designed 
his life work. 

3. To increase facilities for higher education. 

4. To increase the efficiency of the universities and other institutions of 

learning [both by adding to their facilities and by aiding teachers in 
experimental studies]. 

5. To enable such students as may find Washington the best point for their 

special studies to enjoy the advantages of the museums [and other 
numerous institutions]. 

' For a copy of this letter and tlve charter see Proceedings of the John P. Slater Fund 
for the Education of Freedmen, 1883, p. 21 flf. 

* See Carnegie Institution of "Washington, Year Book No. 1, 1902. 



84 PHILAl^TTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

6. To insure the prompt publication and distribution of the results of 
scientific investigation. 

Finally : 

The trustees shall have power, by a majority of two-thirds of their number, 
to modify the conditions and regulations under which the funds may be dis- 
pensed, so as to secure that these shall always be applied in the manner best 
adapted to the advanced conditions of the times ; provided always that any 
modifications shall be in accordance with the purposes of the donor, as 
expressed in the trust. 

4. THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD. 

Following this in 1903 the General Education Board was established by John 
D. Rockefeller. His preliminary gift in 1902 of $1,000,000 was followed in 
1905 by a gift of $10,000,000, and this by a third gift of $32,000,000 in 1907, and a 
fourth, of $10,000,000, in 1909. 

In the act of incorporation Mr. Rockefeller states the purposes of the founda- 
tion as follows: 

Sec. 2. That the object of the said corporation shall be the promotion of 
education within the United-States of America, without distinction of race, sex, 
or creed. 

Sec. 3. That for the promotion of such object the said corporation shall have 
power to build, improve, enlarge, or equip, or to aid others to build, improve, 
enlarge, or equip, buildings for elementary or primary schools, industrial 
schools, technical schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or 
schools of any grade, or for higher institutions of learning, or, in connection 
therewith, libraries, workshops, gardens, kitchens, or other educational ac- 
cessories ; to establish, maintain, or endow, or aid others to establish, main- 
tain, or endow, elementary or primary schools, industrial schools, technical 
schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or schools of any grade, 
or higher institutions^ of learning; to employ or aid others to employ teachers 
and lecturers ; to aid, cooperate with, or endow associations or other corpora- 
tions engaged in educational work within the United States of America, or to 
donate to any such association or corporation any property or moneys which 
shall at any time be held by the said corporation hereby constituted ; to collect 
educational statistics and information, and to publish and distribute documents 
and reports containing the same, and in general to do and perform all things 
necessary or convenient for the promotion of the object of the corporation. 

In a letter from John D. Rockefeller, jr., of date March 2, 1902, the con- 
ditions which are to control the uses to which the money may be put are set 
forth. These limitations were subsequently changed. Originally, however, re- 
ferring to the above statement of purpose, the letter says: " 

Upon this understanding my father hereby pledges to the board the sum of 
one million dollars ($1,000,000) to be expended at its discretion during a period 
of 10 years, and will make payments under such pledges from time to time as 
requested by the board or its executive committee through its duly authorized 
officers. 

The second gift is announced in a letter from Mr. F. T. Gates, which states 
the following conditions : 

The principal to be held in perpetuity as a foundation for education, the in- 
come above expenses of administration to be distributed to, or used for the 
benefit of, such institutions of learning, at such times, in such amounts, for 
such purposes- and under such cond tions, or employed in such other ways, as 
the board may deem best adapted to promote a comprehensive system of higher 
education in the United States. 

The third gift was presented through a letter from Mr. Rockefeller, jr., and 
the conditions controlling the uses of the money are : 

s See The General Education Board, An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914, p. 212 ff. 
6 IWd., p. 213. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIO]S'S. 85 

One-tliird to be added to the permanent endowment of the board, two-thirds 
to be applied to such specific objects within the corporate purposes of the board 
as either he or I may from time to time direct, any remainder, not so designated 
at the death of the survivor, to be added to the permanent endowment of the 
board. 

Concerning the fourth gift Mr. Rockefeller says, through a letter from his 
son addressed to the board, that the gift is to be added to the permanent endow- 
ment of the board. Then follow these qualifications : 

He, however, authorizes and empowers you and your successors, whenever 
in your discretion it shall seem wise, to distribute the principal or any part 
thereof, provided the same shall be authorized by a resolution passed by the 
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all those who shall at the time be members 
of your board at a special meeting held on not less than 30 days' notice given 
in writing, which shall state that the meeting is called for the purpose of con- 
sidering a resolution to authorize the distribution of the whole or some part 
of the principal of said fund. Upon the adoption of such resolution in the 
manner above described, you and your successors shall be and are hereby re- 
leased from the obligation thereafter to hold in perpetuity or as endowment 
such portion of the principal of such fund as may have been authorized to be 
distributed by such resolution. 

This would seem to give the board very wide powers and to leave to the 
donor very little control aside from a part of the third gift specially reserved. 
Yet Mr. Rockefeller seems not to have been fully satisfied, for on June 29, 
1909, he addressed a letter to the board saying: 

Gentlemen : I have heretofore from time to time given to your board cer- 
tain property, the principal of which was to be held in perpetuity, or as en- 
dowment. I now authorize and empower you and, your successors, whenever 
in your discretion it shall seem wise, to distribute the principal or any part 
thereof, provided the same shall be authorized by a resolution passed by the 
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all those who shall at the time be members 
of your board, at a special meeting held on not less than 30 days' notice given 
in writing, which shall state that the meeting is called for the purpose of con- 
sidering a resolution to authorize the distribution of the whole, or some part of 
the principal of said funds. Upon the adoption of such resolution in the man- 
ner above prescribed, you and your successors shall be, and are hereby, re- 
leased from the obligation thereafter to hold in perpetuity or as endowment 
such portion of the principal of such funds as may have been authorized to 
be distributed by such resolution. 

It would be hard to think of a point at which this board could be given 
wider freedom in the exercise of its jurisdiction over these funds than is here 
granted by the founder. 

5. THE CAENEGIE FOUNDATION. 

The fifth of these foundations, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 
ment of Teaching, had its origin in a letter, of date April 16, 1905, in which Mr. 
Carnegie set forth to a group of 25 men whom he had chosen to act as his 
trustees the plan of his foundation.' In all he has placed $16,250,000 in the 
hands of this board. The plan is clearly stated in the charter which was 
obtained in March, 1906. Here the object is declared to be: 

To provide retiring pensions, without regard to race, sex, creed, or color, for 
the teachers of universities, colleges, and technical schools in the United States, 
the Dominion of Canada, and Newfoundland, who, by reason of long and meri- 
torious service, or by reason of old age, disability, or other sufficient reason, 
shall be deemed entitled to the assistance and aid of this corporation, on such 
terms and conditions, however, as such coi'poration may from time to time 
approve and adopt. 

' Quoted in full in the first annual report of the president and treasure!" of the Carnegie 
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 



86 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATIOIT. 

Then follows the limitation that those connected with any institution which 
is controlled by a sect or which imposes any theological test as a condition of 
entrance into or connection therewith are excluded. 

In general, to do and perform all things necessary to encourage, uphold, and 
dignify the profession of the teacher and the cause of higher education * * *, 
and to promote the object of the foundation, with full power, however, to the 
trustee hereinafter appointed and their successors, from time to time to modify 
the conditions and regulations under which the work shall be carried on, so 
as to secure the application of the funds in the manner best adapted to the 
conditions of the times; [and provided that by two-thirds vote the trustees 
may] enlarge or vary the purposes herein set forth, provided that the objects 
of the corporation shall at all times be among the foregoing and kindred 
thereto.' 

6. THE KUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION. 

In April, 1907, the sixth of these, the Russel Sage Foundation, was chartered ' 
by the State of New York. The charter states the purpose of the corporation to 
be that of — 

Receiving and maintaining a fund or funds and applying the income thereof 
to the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States of 
America. It shall be within the purposes of said corporation to use any means 
to that end which from time to time shall seem expedient to its members or 
trustees, including research, publication, education, the establishment and 
maintenance of charitable or benevolent activities and institutions, and the aid 
of any such activities, agencies, or institutions already established. 

In her letter of gift, of date April 19, 1907, Mrs. Sage says : " I do not wish 
to enlarge or limit the powers given to the foundation by its act of incorpo- 
ration," * but adds that it seems wise to express certain desires to which she 
would wish the trustees to conform. Then follows several suggestions relative 
to local and national use of the funds, types of investments, etc., which in the 
writer's judgment tend to enlarge the freedom which most men serving as trus- 
tees would otherwise have been inclined to exercise over the funds under the 
charter. 

7. THE PHELPS-STOKES FUND. 

The seventh of these foundations was the Phelps-Stokes Fund of nearly 
$1,000,000, which was established by the bequest of Caroline Phelps Stokes, 
who made her will in 1893 and died in 1909. The foundation was chartered 
in 1911. In her will Miss Stokes says : " I direct that all my residuary estate 
* * * shall be given by my executors to the following persons " (here she 
names the trustees she has chosen, and adds) : 

To invest and keep invested by them and their successors, the interest and 
net income of such fund to be used by them and their successors for the erec- 
tion or improvement of tenement-house dwellings in New York City for the 
poor families of New York City and for educational purposes in the education 
of the negroes both in Africa and the United States, North American Indians, 
and needy and deserving white students, through industrial schools of kinds 
similar to that at Northfield, Mass., in which Mr. Dwight L. Moody is inter- 
ested, or to the Peet Industrial School at Asheville, N. C, the foundation of 
scholarships and the erection or endowment of school buildings * * *. I 
hereby give said trustees and their successors full power of sale, public or 
private, in their discretion, upon such terms as they think best respecting any 
part of said trust fund in the course of the due execution of such trust." 

8 "Act of Incorporation, By-Laws, Rules for Granting of Retiring Allowances," N. Y„ 
1906. 

» For copies of this letter and of the charter the writer is indebted to Dr. John M. 
Glenn, director of the foundation. 

>" From Phelps-Stokes Fund — Act of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Other Documents. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 87 

The charter, in defining the purpose of the foundation, uses much of this 
same language and in addition the following : 

It shall be within the purpose of said corporation to use any means to such 
ends * * *, including research, publication, the establishment and mainte- 
nance of charitable or benevolent activities, agencies, and institutions, and the 
aid of any such activities, agencies, or institutions already established." 

This fund stands as a permanent endowment, but with such very general 
conditions placed upon its use that it is virtually as free as it could be made. 

8. THE ROCKEFELLEE FOUNDATION. 

The latest foundation of just this type to be established is that of the Rocke- 
feller Foundation, incorporated in April, 1913. The purpose of the corporation 
is that — 

of receiving and maintaining a fund or funds, and applying the income and 
principal thereof, to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world. 

Its means are to be — 

research, publication, the establishment and maintenance of charitable, benevo- 
lent, religious, missionary, and public educational activities, agencies, and insti- 
tutions, and the aid of any such activities, agencies, and institutions already 
established, and any other means and agencies which from time to time shall 
seem expedient to its members or trustees." 

9. THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION. 

There is one other type of foundation that is of very recent origin, but which 
is rapidly becoming popular, and shows promise of becoming very extensive 
and powerful in the near future. The chief work of this corporation is not 
education, but since educational service is within Its powers it deserves men- 
tion here. The Cleveland Foundation, organized in January, 1914, was the first 
of this type, since followed by the Chicago Community Trust, the Houston 
Foundation, the Los Angeles Community Foundation, the St. Louis Commu- 
nity Trust, the Spokane Foundation, and other foundations of similar char- 
acter at Milwaukee, Boston, Indianapolis, Ind., Attleboro, Mass., Minneapolis, 
Detroit, and Seattle. The Cleveland Foundation was formed by resolution 
of the board of directors of the Cleveland Trust Co., in which the company 
agreed to act as trustee of property given and devised for charitable purposes, 
all property to be administered as a single trust. The income of this founda- 
tion is administered by a committee appointed partly by the trustee company 
and partly by the mayor, the judge of the probate court, and the Federal district 
judge. The principal is managed by the trustee company. 

The resolution creating the trust sets forth the object of the foundation as 

follows : " 

Prom the time the donor or testator provides that income shall be available 
for use of such foundation, such income less proper charges and expenses 
shall be annually devoted perpetually to charitable purposes, unless principal 
is distributed as hereinafter provided. Without limiting in any way the 
charitable purposes for which such income may be used, it shall be available 
for assisting charitable and educational institutions, whether supported by 
private donations or public taxation, for promoting education, scientific re- 
search, for care of the sick, aged, or helpless, to improve living conditions, 
or to provide recreation for all classes, and for such other charitable purposes 
as will best make for the mental, moral, and physical improvement of the 



" iMd., p. 5 ff. 

12 An Act to Incorporate The Rockefeller Foundation, in Ann. Rep. 

13 From " The Cleveland Foundation a Community Trust," The Cleveland Trust Co., 
1914. 



88 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

inhabitants of the city of Cleveland, as now or hereafter constituted, regard- 
less of race, color, or creed, according to the discretion of a majority in 
number of a committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided. 

It is further provided that if contributors to the foundation, in their instru- 
ments of gift, place limitations as to the final disposition of the principal, or 
as to the uses to which its income may be put, or as to what members of the 
trust company shall exercise control over the disposition of principal or 
interest, then — 

The trustee shall respect and be governed by the wishes as so expressed, but 
only in so far as the purposes indicated shall seem to the trustee, under con- 
ditions as they may hereafter exist, wise and most widely beneficial, absolute 
discretion being vested in a majority of the then members of the board of 
directors of the Cleveland Trust Co. to determine with respect thereto. 

When by the exercise of this power funds are diverted from the purposes 
indicated by their respective donors, such funds " shall be used and dis- 
tributed for the general purposes of the foundation." 

The foundation is to provide a committee for distributing its funds, the com- 
mittee to be made up of — 

Residents of Cleveland, men or women interested in welfare work, possess- 
ing a knowledge of the civic, educational, physical, and moral needs of the 
community, preferably but one, and in no event to exceed two members of 
said committee to belong to the same religious sect or denomination, those 
holding or seeking political office to be disqualified from serving. 

Two members of the committee are to be appointed by the Cleveland Trust 
Co., one by the mayor, one by the senior or presiding judge of the court which 
settles estates in Cuyahoga County, and one by the senior or presiding judge 
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This 
committee is to be provided with a paid secretary, but otherwise to receive 
expenses only. 

There are other interesting features of this resolution. For instance, when 
the income of any trust is available for use by the foundation — 

All or any portion of the property belonging to such trust may be listed for 
taxation, regardless of any statute exempting all or any part thereof by reason 
of its application to charitable purposes, if a majority of the board of directors 
of the Cleveland Trust Co. shall so direct. 

And more important still is the provision that — 

With the approval of two-thirds of the entire board of directors of the 
Cleveland Trust Co., given at a meeting called specifically for that purpose, all 
or any part of the principal constituting the trust estate may be used for any 
purpose within the scope of the foundation, which may have the approval 
of four members of said committee, providing that not to exceed 20 per cent 
of the entire amount held as principal shall be disbursed during a period of 
five consecutive years. 

Careful provision is made for an annual audit of all accounts, and full 
control of funds and properties is vested in the trustees of the foundation. 

This is clearly a new method of handling philanthropy. In a sense it is an 
ordinary commission business with unusually good security for its patrons. 
From the standpoint of the bank it promises fair though not lucrative profit. 
It is so designed as to keep its business exclusively for the city of Cleveland, 
so that fortunes accumulated there by the few eventually may be turned back 
to the community in the form of some kind of public service. Looked at from 
another angle, it is a real community enterprise which ought to develop civic 
pride as well as contribute to the solution of local social and educational 
problems. It makes philanthropy possible for small as well as large fortunes, 



GKEAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 89 

and so tends to popularize giving. The large fund that promises to accumulate 
is always adaptable to whatever changes the future may bring. It is un- 
doubtedly an interesting and important business and social experiment by 
which education may hope to profit. 

This places before us in fairly complete form the aims and purposes of this 
rather new type of educational enterprise. The Anna T. Jeanes Foundation 
is very similar in character but deals with elementary education exclusively. 
Similarly there are numerous other foundations engaged in charitable, library, 
or research work whose founding instruments embody the same fundamental 
principles common to those here quoted and, viewed from the standpoint of 
the evolution of a theory of endowments, belong in the same class. 

To state these principles in brief we may say, first of all, that the " purpose " 
is in every case set forth in the most general terms and in brief and simple 
language ; second, that the means for carrying out this purpose is left almost 
entirely to the trustees of the foundation ; third, that the means, and to an 
extent in some cases even the purpose, is modifiable at the will of the trustees ; 
and fourth, that there is no sectional, racial, denominational, political, or 
ecclesiastical control. In most cases the capital fund is to remain permanently 
intact, but in some cases the entire income and capital may be used and the 
trust terminated. The Peabody Education Fund illustrates how this latter 
plan has already operated in full. The possible scope of activities is practically 
national for all, and international for some, the boards of trustees are self- 
perpetuating, and they receive no pay for their services. 

This means that there is every possibility for keeping these large sums of 
money, now amounting to more than $300,000,000, constantly in touch with 
the real educational needs of the country, and in these charters there seems 
no possibility that it will ever be necessary for any one of these foundations 
to continue to do any particular thing in any particular way — as, for instance, 
to maintain " enough faggots to burn a heretic " — in order to control the avail- 
able funds to some entirely desirable and profitable end. 

THE OPERATIONS OF THESE FOUNDATIONS. 

The real test of these liberal provisions could come only when educational 
philanthropy as a business began actually to cope with the educational, social, 
and economic forces in the midst of which it sought a place of responsibility. 

A half century of activity has passed since the first of these foundations be- 
gan its work. During the first 15 years of this period the Peabody Fund stood 
alone. Then came the Slater Fund, after which 20 years passed before the 
next, the Carnegie Institution at Washington, was established. This founda- 
tion by Mr. Carnegie seemed to initiate a new era in respect both to the number 
and size of these endowments. 

1. THE PEABODY EDUCATION FUND. 

When the Peabody Education Fund began its work there wer^ few public- 
school systems of consequence in the South, either city or State. With this 
fund Dr. Barnas Sears attacked this problem directly, and by 1875 had so popu- 
larized the idea that cities and States were taking over the schools which 
the fund had established. The next move was for the training of teachers 
for these schools. Arrangements were made to turn the University of Nash- 
ville to this purpose, its new name to be Peabody Normal College. This was 
done in 1875, and a large number of scholarships were established. Later, 
attention^i^s turned to summer normals, to teachers ' institutes, and gradually 
to the development of normal schools in each of the States. 



90 PHILANTHROPY IN AMBBICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

Doctor Curry, who succeeded Doctor Sears, carried forward the development 
of normal schools, but in his work began to condition his gifts upon the State's 
making appropriations to go with them. Doctor Curry was repeatedly before 
State legislatures, defending the claims of public education ; and when, in 1898, 
it was proposed to make final division of the fund by endowing one or more 
institutions, practically every Southern State protested against it. This dis- 
position of the fund was finally made in 1913-14, with the endowment of the 
George Peabody College for Teachers. 

During the years 1868 to 1914 the foundation gave away $3,650,- 
556 to the following : " 

1. City public schools $1, 148, 183 

2. Normal schools 759, 122 

3. Teachers' institutes 382, 755 

4. George Peabody College 550,381 

5. Scholarships 580, 665 

6. Educational journals 8, 300 

7. Summer schools 82, 500 

8. Rural public schools 37, 800 

9. State supervision of rural schools 77, 950 

10. Educational campaigns 13, 500 

11. County supervision of teaching 15, 000 

12. Miscellaneous 44,400 

The final distribution of the fund, with its accrued income, was as 

follows : 

George Peabody College for Teachers 1, 500, 000 

University of Virginia 40, 000 

University of North Carolina 40, 000 

University of Georgia 40, 000 

University of Alabama 40, 000 

University of Florida 40,000 

University of Missisippi 40,000 

Louisiana State University 40, 000 

University of Arkansas 40, 000 

University of Kentucky 40,000 

Johns Hopkins University 6, 000 

University of South Carolina 6, 000 

University of Missouri 6,000 

University of Texas 6, 000 

Winthrop Normal College 90, 000 

John F. Slater Fund (education of negroes), estimated at 350,000 

Table 36 will give some slight notion of the service rendered by the fund, if 
we keep in mind, first, that no one of the 11 States receiving aid from the 
fund in 1871 was itself contributing as much as $800,000 for common schools, 
and that at least 2 of these States spent less than $200,000 each ;" and second, 
that these sums were so placed by the foundation as to stimulate interest in 
the idea of public schools. 

The difficulty of the task which this foundation has performed must not be 
overlooked. It is specially noteworthy that from the beginning its agents 
worked in the open, frankly as a big propaganda entei-prise. Both by addresses 
and by publications the people were kept informed as to just what the founda- 
tion sought to do. 

• Proc. Peabody Educ. Fund, Vol. VI, p. 634 f£. 
" See Rep. of U. S, Commis. of Educ, 1871. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 



91 



Table 36. — Distribution of the gifts of the Peabody Education Fund, 1868-1910, 
in 9 to 12 Southern States.^ 



Dates. 


To 
States. 


To 
Normal 
College, 
Nash- 
ville. 


Scholar- 
ships in 
Normal 
College, 
Nash- 
ville. 


Total 
grants. 


Dates. 


To 
States. 


To 
Normal 
College, 
Nash- 
ville. 


Scholar- 
ships in 
Normal 
College, 
Nash- 
ville. 


Total 
grants. 


1868 


$35,400 
90,000 
90,500 
100,000 
130,000 
136, 850 
134,600 
98,000 
73,300 
78,850 
57,600 
64,500 
42,900 
34,125 
49, 350 
46,925 
31,600 
31,995 
46,000 
31,600 
23,600 
39,750 






$35,400 

90,000 

90,500 

100,000 

130,000 

136, 850 

134,600 

101,000 

76,300 

95,750 

64,500 

87,800 

66,350 

64,100 

73,509 

77,125 

62,700 

63,065 

74,500 

66,400 

49,200 

77, 150 


1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

18% 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908... . 


$43,376 
49, 524 
54,800 
47,500 
39,688 
34,551 
49,019 
45,100 
45,700 
45,114 
43,604 
41,300 
41,100 
36,673 
38,400 
52,500 
54,500 
35,000 


$28,250 
14,3.50 
14,000 
13,200 
11,600 
20, .300 
6,212 
9,900 
14,600 
14,750 
15, 100 
14,600 
14,600 
14,600 
16,600 
2.5,500 
37,500 
45,000 


$21,474 
23,726 
23,600 
26,450 
25,188 
35, 131 
19,008 
23,567 
24,498 
24,709 
25,351 
24,329 
24,180 
24,127 
25,000 


$93, 100 


1869 






87,600 


1870 






92,400 


1871 






87, 150 


1872 






76,388 


1873 






89, 981 


1874 






74,239 


1875 


$3,000 
3,000 
15,000 
5,000 
11,000 
13,000 
4,000 
8,000 
9,500 
9,900 
10,100 
10,000 
10,500 
7,800 
10,950 




60,567 


1876. . . 




84, 798 


1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883 


$1,900 
1,900 
12,300 
10,400 
25,975 
16,150 
20,700 
21,200 
20,970 
18,500 
24,300 
17,800 
26,450 


84, 573 
84,055 
80,229 
79, 880 
75,400 
80,000 
78,000 


1884 




92,000 


1885 




80,000 


1886 




80,000 


1887 


1909 








69,000 


1888 


1910 








36,500 


1889 













1 Compiled from Kept, of U. S. Commis. Educ. for 1903 and from An. Proc. of Peabody Educ. Fund. 

It is easy to imagine that society might have been much more skeptical of 
such an agency than it seems to have been. The growth of public-school sys- 
tems and of normal and industrial schools in the South is evidence enough that 
the fund has been greatly useful, and its success stands as a monument to the 
capacity of the southern people to furnish the type of public opinion necessary 
to direct such a philanthropic force into useful channels. In this, however, 
public opinion would have failed had not its founder left it free to meet the 
changing conditions which came with the passing years. This, as our first 
experment, must be pronounced a decided success and it must stand as an 
excellent precedent both for the future public and for the future philanthropist. 

2. THE JOHN F. SLATER FUND. 

The John F. Slater Fund was handled on so nearly the same lines, to so 
nearly the same ends, in the same territory, and for many years by the same 
agent as was the Peabody Education Fund that detailed examination of its 
work would add little if anything new to this discussion. 



3. THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The work of the Carnegie Institution of Washington is difficult to describe 
in terms that will show what its contribution has really been." In explaining 
the policy for the future, it is made clear that " grounds already occupied will 
be avoided,"" and that the institution considers that systematic education in 
universities, colleges, professional schools, and schools of technology, and the 
assistance of meritorious students in the early stages of their studies are already 
provided for anr^ are therefore outside the scope of the foundation. 

»5 For brief description and historical development of the institution, see The Carnegie 
Institution of Washington — Scope and Organization, Fourth issue, Feb. 4, 1015, by the 
institution ; also Seven Great Foundations, by Leonard P. .\yros ; also retrospective re- 
View of, in the Eleventh Year Book of the institution. 

1" Carnegie Institution of Washington, Year Book, No. 1, 1902, p. xli. 

11512°— 22- 7 



92 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

From the outset the institution has directed its work along four lines as 
follows : Large research projects covering a series of years and managed by 
a corps of investigators ; small research projects, usually directed by single 
individuals and for a brief period ; tentative investigations by young men or 
women of aptitude for research ; and publication of the results of its own 
studies and of meritorious work which would not otherwise be readily ptib- 
lished. The order of development of its larger departments of research is 
worthy of notice here. They were as follows : 

Department of Experimental Evolution December, 1903 

Department of Marine Biology December, 1903 

Department of Historical Research December, 1903 

Department of Economics and Sociology ^'^ January, 1904 

Department of Terrestrial Magnetism April, 1904 

Solar Observatory DecGmber. 1904 

Geographical Laboratory December, 1005 

Department of Botanical Research December, 1905 

Nutrition Laboratory December, 1906 

Department of Meridian Astronomy March, 1907 

Department of Embryology December, 1914 

To these larger fields of operation must be added special researches in almost 
every possible field, and even a casual reading of the annual reports of the 
institution shows that the division of administration has itself served as a 
research laboratory of no mean proportions.^' 

From the nature of its work it is evident that the relations of the institu- 
tion to universities and to learned societies would have to be guarded. This 
the institution has tried to do by keeping out of occupied fields and by deal- 
ing witli individuals concerned with specific pieces of research. The outside 
world has apparently raised little question as to the privileges and responsi- 
bilities of this- institution, but with the society of scholars^ it has numerous 
conflicts, if the brief hints in the reports of the president are indicative of 
the content of his letter files.^" It is in the face of this type of public opinion 
that this institution will continue to adjust itself to its proper place in so- 
ciety, and also to work out a fundamental theorjr of administration for this 
new type of educational enterprise, which, together with its help in popular- 
izing scientific method and the use of the results of research, will constitute 
no small part of its total contribution. 

Any study of the finances, or of the amount of work done, or of the number 
of studies published, or of the number of houses, laboratories, observatories, 
and ships owned and utilized by the institution can add but little to any 
attempt to evaluate this type of philanthropic enterprise. The following table 
showing the annual appropriations and the volume and page extent of its 
published researches is of some value, however, when we consider that these 
sums have been spent in fields that could not have been so fully explored if 
the several hundred investigators employed had been compelled to meet the 
usual demands made upon the time of a university professor : 

" Discontinued as a department of the institution in 1916. 

18 See especially the president's study of definitions of "humanities" in the 16th Year 
Book, 1917, p. 16 ff. 

^^ See especially the 14th Year Book of the institution. 



GKEAT EDUCATIONAL. FOUNDATIONS. 



93 



Table 37, — Distribution of appropriations made by the Carnegie Institution 
of Washington, 1902-1911} 



Fiscal 
years. 


Invest- 
ments in 
bonds. 


Large 
projects. 


Minor 
projects and 
special asso- 
ciates and 
assistants. 


Publica- 
tions. 


Adminis- 
tration. 


Total. 


Volumes published. 


Number. 


Pages. 


1902 






$4,500 
137,564 
217,383 
149, 843 
93, 176 
90,176 
61,282 
70,813 
73,464 
63,048 
103,241 
110, 083 
107,456 
109, 569 
99,401 
97,526 




$27,513 
43,627 
36,967 
37, 208 
42, 621 
46, 005 
48,274 
45,292 
44,011 
45, 455 
43,791 
43,552 
44, 159 
48,224 
49,454 
48,776 


$32,013 

282,605 

511,949 

530, 753 

623,216 

702,534 

676, 163 

769,460 

662, 373 

661,616 

1, 147, 047 

1,571,572 

1,876,096 

1, 181, 183 

1,334,572 

1,410,464 


3 
3 
11 

21 
19 

38 
28 
19 
29 
30 
23 
29 
23 
23 
35 
21 


46 


1903 1 SI 00. 475 




$938 
11,590 
21, 822 
42,431 
63, 804 
49,991 
41,577 
49,067 
37, 580 
44,054 
53, 171 
44,670 
46,698 
73,733 
62,884 


1,667 


1904 

1905. 


196, 159 
51, 937 


$49, 848 
269,940 
381,972 
500, 548 
448, 404 
495,021 
437,941 
468,609 
519,673 
698,337 
817,894 
770, 488 
638,281 
695, 813 


2,877 
5,228 


1906 

1907 


63, 015 
2,000 

68,209 
116,756 

57,889 

51,921 
436, 276 
666,428 
861, 915 
206,203 
473, 702 
505,473 


4,454 
9,712 


1908 


7,328 


1909 


4,907 


1910 

1911 


8, 105 
6,732 


1912. . 


6,025 


1913 


9,357 


1914 

1915 


6,912 
6, 152 


1916 

1917 


11,908 
7, 1.55 






Total.. 


3,858,363 


7,187,775 


1,588,531 


644,017 


694,936 


13,973,614 


335 


88,5S5 



1 From 16th Yearbook, p. 29. Cents omitted. 

Several points about these figures are of interest. During tlie 16 5'ears 
recorded in the table the unused funds have accumulated, furnishing a sub- 
stantial reserve fund for special needs. Aside from the first three years from 
45 to 60 per cent of the appropriations have been for large department projects ; 
from 5 to 12 per cent have been for the smaller investigations, the tendency 
being to give rather less to this item ; from 2 to 10 per cent have been for pub- 
lications, also with a tendency to decrease. During the first year only a small 
appropriation was made, approximately 86 per cent of all going for adminis- 
tration. During the second year only about 15 per cent went for administra- 
tion, and for the remaining years the amount has been 7 per cent or less, 
declining to only 3 or 4 per cent in the six years ending in 1917. 

Thei'e are no figures with which these properly can be compared, but they 
stand as the experience of 16 years spent in developing an entirely new type 
of institution. To the universities of the country it has not only furnished a 
great stimulus to research, but it has also given much direct assistance by 
financing important pieces of investigation and by publishing finished pieces of 
research. 

4. THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOABD. 

Mr. Rockefeller referred to the General Education Board as " an organiza- 
tion formed for the purpose of working out, in an orderly and rather scientific 
way, the problem of helping to stimulate and improve education in all parts 
of the country." '" 

The experience of the Peabody Fund in cooperating vnth State, county, and 
city officials was at hand and had been thoroughly studied." Just how to co- 
operate with other forces, public and private, was the first specific problem of 
the General Education Board. 



=0 Rockefeller, John D. The Benevolent Trust, the Cooperative Principle in Giving. 
The Worlds Work, vol. 17, Jan., 1909. 

^ See The General Education Board, 1902-1914, p. 13 flE. 



94 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

Leaving aside the question of how this was aceomplished in the matter of 
farm demonstration worls and in elementary and secondary education in the 
South, we are concerned here with the board's work in the field of higher 
education. 

One of the terms of Mr. Rockefeller's second gift to the board was that 
assistance should be given to — 

such institutions of learning as the board may deem best adapted to promote 
a comprehensive system of higher education in the United States. 

The fact was we had no system of higher education, and this corporation 
proposed to do what it could toward that most laudable end. Schools had been 
developed by the church, the State, and private enterprise, each working with 
but little reference to the other, denominational competition and politics often 
resulting in quite the opposite of system. 

If this new board was to work toward a " system of higher education," then 
it must inevitably clash with these already conflicting enterprises, or somehow 
effect a coordination of their various forces. Some definite policy, therefore, 
had to be decided upon. Two principles of procedure were laid down, as fol- 
lows: The board neither possessed nor desired any authority, and would 
not seek directly or indirectly to bias the action of any college or university ; 
in making an appropriation the board would in no way interfere with the in- 
ternal management of an institution nor incur any responsibility for its 
conduct. 

When and where and how to apply these principles was the practical task. 
In 1916-17 the board reported that in all it had assisted 112 colleges and 
universities in, 32 States. During the year 1916-17 the board contributed a 
total of $1,185,000 toward a total of $5,300,000 in gifts to 9 colleges. When 
we consider that for this same year Harvard received from gifts as much 
as $1,934,947, Columbia $1,390,594, and Chicago $3,181,543 we can see that the 
board had to find some basis for making choice among its many possible 
beneficiaries. 

Making this choice was precisely what Mr. Rockefeller wanted to have done 
scientifically. To do it was to demonstrate that philanthropy could be made 
a successful business enterprise. Accordingly, extensive studies of the ques- 
tion were undertaken, and to date almost the entire college field has been 
surveyed with respect to certain main issu-es, and those colleges to which con- 
tributions have been made have been studied minutely. The result is a mine 
of important and systematically organized information about our higher in- 
stitutions of learning that had not hitherto been available. These studies can 
not be adequately described, nor their value satisfactorily explained in few 
words." As a method of giving they stand as a permanent contribution of 
value. They have meant that fact rather than sentiment has guided the board 
from the start. 

The board has made a somewhat modest statement " of certain clearly evident 
improvements that have resulted from their strict adherence to this method 
of giving, as follows : 

First, is that of more careful accounting systems. 

Second, it has necessitated a clarification of certain terms, such as " capital," 
" endowment," " scientific equipment," etc., the very loose usage of which had 

^ There is plenty of evidence on file in the board rooms to show that many benefactors 
are utilizing these studies in placing their gifts. 

2SThe General Education Board, 1902-1914, p. 149 ff. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 95 

previously made it impossible to compare financial statistics of different in- 
stitutions. 

Third, it has put an end to the practice, rather common among colleges, of 
using the principal of eadowment funds on the assumption that the sum so 
taken was a loan and would later be replaced. 

Fourth, it has brought about a distinction in practice between the educa- 
tional budget of a college and its various business activities, such as the run- 
ning of a boarding hall. 

Fifth, it has resulted in a sort of departmental accounting, which has helped 
not only to distinguish costs in college from costs in preparatory departments 
but has tended to help even in defining what worli is of college and what is of 
academy grade. 

This board has operated on one other principle that deserves mention, viz, 
that any college that can not raise some money from its own natural clientele 
is scarcely to be thought of as very necessary to the community. Accordingly, 
it has been the practice of the board to contribute a sum toward a mucli larger 
total which the college must raise. Mr. Rockefeller said that — 
to give to institutions that ought to be supported by others is not the best 
philanthropy. Such giving only serves to dry up the natural springs of 
charity.^* 

The application of this principle has not only brought large gifts to educa- 
tion that probably would never have been given otherwise, but it has helped 
toward placing the responsibility for the growth of these colleges where it 
belongs — upon large numbers of interested friends. 

Another condition from which the board varies but rarely is that the entire 
gift, of which their own forms a part, shall be preserved inviolate for the 
permanent endowment of the institution. This recognizes the need for general, 
as opposed to special, endowment funds. Another provision is that no part 
of the board's gift can ever be used for theological instruction. 

During the last few years the board has entered upon two other lines of 
work — that of financing and directing educational investigations and that of 
putting clinical instruction in the medical schools of John Hopkins, Yale, and 
Washington Universities upon a full-time basis. This latter was not an untried 
experiment, but it was certainly in an early experimental stage in this country. 

The field of educational investigation was not new, but the demand for such 
work was by no means fully met by other agencies. The survey of the 
Maryland State school system ; the more recent report of a survey of the 
schools of Gary, Ind. ; and the experimental work on reading and writing 
scales at Chicago University and with gifted pupils at Illinois University; 
as well as the experimental school at Teachers College, Columbia University, 
are some of the results so far obtained in this field, all of which give large 
prouiise. 

The following table will give at most an inadequate notion of the work that 
has thus far been accomplished by the foundation : 

** In World's Work, above cited. 



96 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 



Table 38. — Total appropriations of the General Education Board from its 
foundation in 1902 to June 30, 1918.^ 

(The Rockefeller Fund.) 



Amount 
appropriated. 



Amount 
paid. 



Amount 
unpaid. 



For whites: 

Universities and colleges for endowment . 
Colleges and schools for current expenses. 

Medical schools for endowment 

Professors of secondary education 

Rural school agents 

Lincoln school 

ConsoUdated rural schools 

Southern education hoard 



$13,873,704 
174,991 
5,603,774 
379, 339 
230,476 
219,250 
21,500 
97, 126 



$10,278,617 
174, 991 
2,770,874 
343, 089 
172,206 
104, 250 
11,500 
97,126 



20,600,162 



13,952,654 



For negroes: 

Colleges and schools for current expenses and buildings .. 

Medical schools for current expenses 

Rural school agents 

Summer schools 

County training schools 

Home-makers' Clubs 

Expenses of special students at Hampton and Tuskegee. 

Scholarships 

Negro Rural School Fund 

John F. Slater Fund 



1,249,775 
15,000 
208, 120 
19, 891 
49, 797 
90,989 
17, 865 
5,000 
59,400 
3,000 



1,141,282 

15,000 

153,066 

11, 839 

28,604 

58, 768 

3,615 

300 

41,400 



1,718,839 



1, 458, 876 



Agricultural work (white and negro): 

Southern agricultural demonstration work 

Girls' canning and poultry work in the South , 

Maine agriciiltiural demonstration work 

New Hampshire agricultural demonstration work. 
Rural organization service 



716, 077 
113, 751 
120, 876 
64,093 
36,646 



1, 051, 446 



Miscellaneous (white and negro): 

Educational investigation and research 

General survey of educational conditions and needs in 

North Carolina 

Cost-accounting system for Gary 

Expenses rural scnool agents at Harvard summer school. . 

Model county organization 

Conferences 

Supplemental fund 



158, 354 

5,000 
1,025 

7,000 
28, 150 
19, 438 

7,772 



226, 741 



716, 077 
113, 751 
95, 876 
48,093 
36,646 



122, 988 



20, 500 
19, 438 
7,772 



Income on hand June 30, 1918 

Unpaid appropriations as above . 



Unappropriated income June 30, 1918. 



$3,595,087 



2,832,900 
36,250 
58,270 
115, 000 
10,000 



6,647,507 



108,492 



50,054 
8,052 
21, 193 
32, 220 
14, 250 
4,700 
18,000 
3,000 



259, 962 



25,000 
16,000 



41,000 



35,366 
5.000 



7,000 
7,650 



55,016 



8,035,988 
7,003,486 



1,032,501 



1 See An. Rept., Gen. Edue. Bd., 1917-18, pp. 84-85. Cents omitted. 

Ill addition to the foregoing the sum of $110,572.33 has been appropriated 
and paid to negro rural schools from the income of Anna T. Jeanes Fund, and 
$85,000 has been appropriated and paid to Spelman Seminary from the principal 
of the Laura S. Rockefeller Fund. 

5. THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING. 

Fundamental to Mr. Carnegie's doctrine of giving had been the idea that the 
purpose for which one gives must not have a degrading, pauperizing tendency 
upon the recipient.^" To be able to give a pension and avoid such difficulties 
as these was the task Mr. Carnegie set for himself. 

Believing that many evils were resulting from low salaries for professors 
and being familiar with the idea of teachers' pensions so widely practiced in 



^ The Gospel of Wealth, p. 21, ff. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 97 

Europe, Mr. Carnegie hoped to make the pension for the professor and his 
wid^ow a regular part of the American educational system. He believed that 
if the teacher could receive his retiring allowance not as a charity but as a 
matter of right then pensions would raise the plane of academic life.'"' 

Obviously, the income from the original gift of $10,000,000 would not meet 
the needs of the 700 or more institutions calling themselves colleges. First of 
all, therefore, the foundation was face to face with the question of what is a 
college. Secondly, having barred from participation in the fund all institu- 
tions under denominational control, the question of what constitutes denomi- 
national control must also be settled. The legal definition of a college which has 
been in operation in the State of New York furnished a basis for an answer 
to the first question," and a definition of denominational college was arbitrarily 
decided upon and the foundation began operations, trusting to investigation and 
experience to clarify these definitions. 

The first work of the foundation was to send out a circular asking all in- 
stitutions of higher learning for information bearing upon: (a) The educa- 
tional standards in use ; (b) the relations of the school to the State, both 
in matters of control and support; (c) the relation of the school to religious 
denominations. In addition to this, information regarding salaries and size of 
faculties was asked for.°® This brought together an unusually rich mass of 
educational data, which when digested by the foundation furnished the basis for 
its future action. 

Out of this and succeeding studies came the quantitative definition of the 
college entrance " unit " ; a clearer distinction between the work of a pre- 
paratory department and that of the college proper; as well as clearer con- 
ceptions of " college," of " State college," and of " denominational college." 
These accomplishments are pointed to here not only as an important con- 
tribution in .standardization but also because of the wide discussion of these 
subjects which the action of the foundation provoked. Such work shows, too, 
how the foundation realized that in order to act wisely in the awarding of re- 
tiring allowances it must itself first of all become an " educational agency." ^° 

This type of study is not the extent of the foundation's educational investiga- 
tions. Its charter demanded that the trustees " do and perform all things 
necessary to encourage, uphold, and dignify the profession of the teacher and 
the cause of higher education."'" In pursuance of this end the foundation has 
from the start undertaken to contribute liberally to the scientific study of 
higher education. In 1913 Mr. Carnegie added $1,250,000 to the endowment to 
meet the needs of a research department, and already the results of 11 extensive 
studies have been published and several others are under way. It is not possible 
to state accurately the value of this type of contribution. One might point to 
specific cases of more accurate university bookkeeping having resulted from the 
issuance of Bulletin No. 3, 1910, which presented 25 typical blank forms for 
the public reporting of the financial receipts and expenditures of universities 
and colleges ; or to the revision of standards and the stir that was caused in 
the medical world by the issuance of Bulletin No. 4, 1910, describing the status 
of medical education in the United States and Canada ; or to the legislative 
enactments following the recommendations made in Bulletin No. 7, 1907, giv- 

2« See The Policy of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Educ. 
Rev., June, 1906. 

" See First Annual Report of the President and of the Treasurer, p. 38. 

^ Ibid., p. 10, t£. 

=" See The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Second Annual 
Report of the President and Treasurer, p. 65. 

*" See quotation on p. 85. 



98 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN" HIGHER EDUCATION. 

ing the results of the survey of education in the State of Vermont ; or to 
similar reactions to the reports dealing with engineering education and legal 
education, and in each instance show that the study brought direct results. 
The larger value of such work, however, can not be measured in that way. 
The sentiment for better medical schools which was created by the foundation's 
study has been a powerful factor in bringing about higher standards of training 
in that profession, and similar valuable results have come from other studies. 

In administering the pension system the foundation has met with many 
difficulties, some of which have not been easy to overcome. From the outset 
the foundation has wisely dealt with institutions and not with individuals. 
It must not be said, however, that the foundation set itself up as a standard- 
izing agency. It did set itself up as an educational agency, and very properly 
chose to administer its funds in terms of educational standards of its own 
choosing. In doing this no embarrassment was felt. The foundation named 
a list of " accepted institutions,"" explained why these were included, and 
no serious criticism of this list was offered by the public. 

By the end of the first year the trustees stated that the questions of edu- 
cational standards and of denominational or State control had been provision- 
ally dealt with.^" These questions continued to bring difficulties to the foun- 
dation, and for several years their reports show that they were exhaustively 
studied. The question of pensions for professors of State universities was 
solved in 1908 when Mr. Carnegie addressed a letter to the board in which 
he offered to add $5,000,000 to the endowment in order to meet that need.^ 
Denominational colleges memorialized the trustees to modify their ruling af- 
fecting such institutions,** but with little success. Several sharp criticisms of 
the position of the foundation in this matter appeared in magazines,^ but the 
trustees preferred to maintain their original standard.^' 

During the first few years the number of institutions eligible for the " ac- 
cepted list " increased at an unexpected rate ^ and the foundation was com- 
pelled to revise its rules for granting pensions or otherwise plan to carry a 
heavier load. Within a very few years a number of colleges under denomina- 
tional control, by proper legal process, had so modified their charters or articles 
of incorporation as to make them eligible to the accepted list,^ the original 
actuarial figures had taken no account of the growth of the institutions,^* and 
the number retiring under the " years of service " basis had been far greater 
than anticipated,*" and other facts indicated that some modification of original 

"^The original list is printed in the foundation's first annual report above cited. 

»2 See the foundation's first annual report above cited, p. 36 ff. 

S3 See the foundation's third annual report, p. 62, for copy of his letter. 

" See the foundation's fourth annual report, p. 4 ff. 

"s See letter by J. P. Gushing published in Nation, vol. 90, p. 233, and other articles in 
the same volume; also vol. 31 of Science. 

3" Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Report, 1909, p. 6. 

3' Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Report, 1909, p. 63. 

«8 Bowdoin, Drury, Central University of Kentucky, and Drake University are illus- 
trations. * 

'» See the foundation's fourth annual report, p. 62. 

^0 In his Review of Six Years of Administrative Experience the president of the founda- 
tion explains that the 25 years of service rule had been " adopted by the trustees under 
the assumption that but few applications would be made under it, and that these would 
be in the main applications from men who were disabled for further service. The inten- 
tion was in fact to use the rule as a disability provision." "After a few years of adminis- 
tration it was perfectly clear that the rule was doing harm rather than good. It was 
therefore repealed by the trustees in accordance with the authority they had reserved in 
their hands," and was made a definite disability rule. See seventh annual report of the 
president and treasurer. 1912, p. 82. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 99 

plans would have to be made. At the outset the right to make such modification 
had been specially reserved," partly upon the advice of actuarial experts. Ac- 
cordingly, in 1909 the rules for granting retiring allowances were -changed in 
two respects. 

The original rules based the grant of a pension upon age or length of service 
in accordance with 10 specific rules. Rule 1 was revised to include instructors 
as well as the various grades of professors, deans, and presidents, and so really 
broadened the scope of the foundation's work to that extent. The original rules 
granting a pension after 25 years of service were changed so as to restrict 
such allowance to only such teachers as were proved by medical examination 
to be unfit for service. This latter change brought forth extensive criticism, 
raising the question of the ethical right of the foundation to do the thing it 
had specifically reserved the right to do, viz, to modify its rules " in such man- 
ner as experience may indicate as desirable." 

The reasons for making these changes are more fully set forth in their 1904 
report than it is possible to show in brief space. It serves our purpose here to 
note, first, that such change was made, and that the foundation was legally 
within its rights in so doing ; and, second, that the change met with strong oppo- 
sition in many quarters. 

There were slight modifications of these rules, but no important changes 
were proposed until the issuance to the trustees and to all teachers in associated 
institutions of the foundation's confidential communication in 1915, setting 
forth a Comprehensive Plan of Insurance and Annuities.*^ This communica- 
tion called attention to the weak points in the existing system of pensions and 
proposed to I'eplace the old system with a plan of insurance and annuities. 
More than 50 institutions complied with the request for criticism, and their 
statements are published in an appendix to the eleventh annual report of the 
foundation. Many faculties approved the plan in part, a few approved the plan 
in full as suggested, but altogether these statements, together with what ap- 
peared in the press, contain many important criticisms. It was argued, first, 
that the Carnegie Foundation had created certain expectations on the part of 
college teachers which it was morally obligated to fulfill ; second, that it is 
unjust to establish a system of insurance involving compulsory cooperation on 
the part of every teacher; and, third, that commercial companies could offer 
a plan which would be financially more attractive.*' 

In 1916-17 the trustees passed a resolution referring the proposed new plan 
of insurance and annuities to a commission consisting of six trustees of the 
foundation, two representatives of the American Association of University 
Professors, and one representative each from the Association of American 
Universities, the National Association of State Universities, and the Associa- 
tion of American Colleges." This commission agreed upon a plan of insurance 

" See original Rules for Granting of Retiring Allowances in first annual report. 

*^ This was later published as Bulletin No. 9 of the foundation. 

*' In the eleventh annual report of the president and treasurer Preside-nt Pritchett 
virtually accepts the first of these objections as valid (see p. 24), and the trustees passed 
a resolution approving the idea of a contributory pension system which will operate 
" without unfairness to the just expectations of institutions or of individuals under the 
present rules." (See p. 4.) In the twelfth annual report a review of the year's work 
points out that the experience of 12 years' work has found the foundation " faced with 
two duties : First, to carry out fairly and to the best of their ability the obligations as- 
sumed in the associated institutions " ; and, secondly, to establish a system of insurance. 
Further the report says : " In the nature of the case the determination of what is a 
reasonable exercise of the power of revision retained by the trustees touches many per- 
sonal interests." See pp. 19 and 30. 

" Twelfth An. Rep. of the Foundation, 1916-17, p. 5, for the membership of this com- 
mission. 



100 



PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN' HIGHER EDUCATION. 



and annuities and recommended it to the trustees of the foundation." In May, 
1917, it was voted to approve the fundamental principles of the teachers' pen- 
sion systenf and also the combination of insurance and annuity benefits, as de- 
fined in the report of the above commission." 

This very soon led to the organization of the Teachers' Insurance and An- 
nuity Association of America, chartered by the State of New York on March 
4, 1918. This insurance company, together with a definite and fair plan for 
fulfilling the expectations of teachers who had belonged to the associated insti- 
tutions under the original pension system, brought to a close what is likely 
to be regarded as the first period of the history of the Carnegie Foundation 
for the Advancement of Teaching. It was in many ways a stormy period in 
which sharp and often personal criticism was hurled at the foundation by 
individuals, through the press and even in the form of an investigation by the 
Federal Commission on Industrial Relations. Few direct replies to these 
criticisms have been made by the officers of the foundation except through the 
pages of their regular annual reports," where every intelligent criticism has 
been dealt with. 

It is obvious, even from this brief sketch of the history of this foundation, 
that what may be termed the elastic clause in its rules for granting pensions 
has been a most important one. The field was new and experience alone could 
point the way. Without the right to change its plans the foundation might 
have become a nuisance instead of a blessing. If that clause has given the 
foundation an easy way out of difficulties — too easy as some have thought — 
it has proved to be an excellent point of leverage for public opinion, and it 
must be evident to all that public opinion has not been ignored. 

It must be said that the foundation has done some difficult pioneering in the 
field of teachers' pensions and has contributed liberally to the development and 
application of proper standards in the field of higher education. The following 
tables will give a partial financial view of the operations of the foundation up 
to June 30, 1917 : 

Tablk 39. — Receipts and expenditures of Carnegie Foundation for Advancement 

of Teaching, 1906-1911.°- 



Dates. 



1906'' 
1907.. 
1908.. 
1909. . 
1910.. 
1911.. 
1912.. 
1913.. 
1914.. 
1915.. 
1916.. 
1917 c 



Total 
receipts. 



S292, 673 
644, 031 
530, 303 
544, 355 
543, 881 
590, 449 
676, 486 
694, 195 
696, 038 
712, 852 
800, 332 
625, 862 



Expenditures. 



Retiring 
allow- 
ance. 



S158, 
246, 
343, 
469, 
526, 
570, 
600, 
634, 
674, 
687, 
547, 



Adminis- 
tration. 



$19, 932 
39, 906 
39, 898 
36, 106 
35, 749 
36, 743 

35, 949 
36,632 
32, 910 

36, 550 
36, 684 
33, 772 



Publica- 
tion. 



$7, 983 
8, 635 
9,414 

23, 777 
3,579 
1,758 
1,576 
5,620 
6,390 



Studies, 
etc. 



S531 

9,494 

23, 929 

7, 40(; 

3,347 



2,401 



Total. 



$19, 932 
198, 797 
287, 072 
397, 455 
538, 148 
580, 443 
634, 490 
640, 601 
669, 532 
712, 852 
731, 413 
625, 862 



a Compiled from the annual report of the treasurer of the foundation. Cents are omitted. 
b July 1 to Sept. 30. 

c Oct. 1 to June 30. 

« Ibid., appendix to Part II, for a full report of this commission. 

« Ibid., p. 28 ff. 

" President Henry S. Pritchett wrote a careful and dignified reply to such criticisms 
for the N. Amer. Rev. of April, 1915, " Should the Carnegie Foundation be Suppressed ; " 
and Secretary Clyde Furst gave an address before the Dept. of Sup., Nat. Ed. Assoc, in 
1918, on " The Place of the Educational Foundation in American Education." This ad- 
dress was published in School and Society for March 30, 1918. 



GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 101 

Table 40.— Foundation's expenditures for allowances, each third year} 



Years. 



1906»... 
1908-9. . 
1911-12 . 
1914-15 . 
1916-173 



Institutions. 



/Associated 

iNonassociated 

/Associated 

\Nonassociated 

f Associated 

\Nonassoeiated, 

/Associated 

\Nonassociated 

/Associated 

\Nonassociated 



Num- 
ber. 



Retired 
teachers 
on roll. 



44 
12 

162 
54 

220 



274 
62 



Retiring 
allow- 
ances 
paid. 



$15, 479 

6,475 

206, 473 

104,537 

388, 338 

108, 330 

473, 969 

99, 851 

345, 214 

62, 054 



Widows' 
pensions. 



Num- 
ber. 



33 
12 
62 
23 
90 
28 
112 
32 



Amount 
paid. 



$1, 125 

125 
24, 545 
8,317 
53, 646 
20,046 
80, 152 
20, 752 
116, 891 
23, 199 



Total 

amount 

paid. 



$16, 604 
6,600 
231, 018 
112, 853 
441, 985 
128, 438 
554, 122 
120, 603 
462, 105 
85,253 



I The amounts for the iatervening years are not given, but approximate those here reported; see 12th 
An. Rep. of the foundation. Cents are omitted. 
' From July 1 to Sept. 30. 
• Oct. 1 to June 30. 

6. THE BtrSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION. 

The Russell Sage Foundation has purposely avoided the field of higher edu- 
cation from the start,*' but deserves mention here because of the contributions 
it has made to educational research. 

Among its contributions are to be listed studies of retardation and elimina- 
tion in city school systems, the medical inspection of schools, the care and 
training of crippled children, child-welfare work, health work in public schools, 
education through recreation, school buildings and equipment, and many other 
studies of direct or indirect value in reducing education to a science. Im- 
portant, too, is the extensive work which the foundation has done in the field 
of educational surveys. The reports of the Springfield and the Cleveland 
surveys have aided materially in the establishment of standards for this kind 
of work. From the start the foundation's policy has been to. spend its income 
on research and the dissemination of knowledge with a preventive intent. That 
it has carried out such a policy is evident to those who are familiar with its 
publications. 

SUMMARY. 

In this chapter it has been the purpose to describe the working principles 
and as far as possible to show the significance of our recently established phil- 
anthropic educational foundations. In form these foundations represent a 
new type of agency in educational philanthropy. In scope the possibility of 
service which they are empowered to render to higher education is almost with- 
out limit, and in the main each of the foundations occupies a field peculiarly 
its own. 

These foundations are well characterized as attempts at reducing educa- 
tional philanthropy to a business. The corporate principle is fully applied and 
the plan of administration is similar to that by which the affairs of a factory 
or a railroad are directed. In their most recent form the essential principles 
of a commission business are em'ployed. 

They are further characterized by the very general limitations placed upon 
the gifts by the founders ; by the possibilities left open for reasonable changes 
in the original purpose, or even, in some eases, for a termination of the entire 

*^ Schneider, Franz, jr. The Russell Sage Foundation, in Jour. Nat. Institute of So. 
Sciences, Dee. 20, 1915, p. 5. 



102 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 

trust ; by the very careful plans devised for the administration of the funds ; 
and by the entire absence of political, sectarian, or sectional control. 

The work accomplished by these foundations can not be fully evaluated. In 
variety and extent it includes gifts and propaganda for the development of 
public schools, the endowment of colleges, fellowships, and pensions, as well as 
research in almost every field known to science. In all these fields their 
efforts have been fruitful. 

The movement (for in the history of educational philanthropy it must be 
called a distinct movement) appears not yet to have reached its zenith. In 
character it is becoming more and more inclusive, and perhaps by that tendency 
may contribute to the establishment of the idea that education is but one of 
the many aspects of our social problem. The power which such institutions 
can turn toward the reconstruction of society has already been clearly indi- 
cated by the results described above, but quite as clearly has public opinion 
shown not only its ability to discern the possible misuses of that power but also 
its readiness to bring pressure to bear once a sign of such danger has been 
sensed. However much these foundations may supervise, therefore, and the 
promise in this respect is great, it is evident that they will themselves not go 
unsupervised. 



Chapter VI. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 



PURPOSE AND PLAN OF THE STUDY. 

It has been the purpose of this study to inquire into the extent to which 
philanthropy has been responsible for the development of our institutions of 
higher learning, to discover what motives have prompted this philanthropy 
and how these motives have influenced college building, and, in addition, to 
try to bring to light whatever has been developed in the way of a theory of 
educational philanthropy and of educational endowments. 

The study is covered in four chapters dealing, respectively, with: (1) The 
development of a theory of endowments and of philanthropy; (2) philanthropy 
of the colonial period; (3) philanthropy of the early national period, 1776- 
1865; (4) philanthropy of the late national period, 1865-1918; and (5) great 
educational foundations. 

Various sources have been drawn upon, chief of which have been indicated 
by footnote references. These sources may be classified as having to do with 
what may be termed the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the problem, 
respectively. The former including charters, constitutions, by-laws, deeds of 
trust, wills, and other instruments of gift ; the latter only with the bare figures 
and their analysis, or the statistics, of such gifts. 

THE THEORY OF ENDOWMENTS. 

At the beginning of college building in America there was no special theory 
of educational endowments or of educational philanthropy to work from. No 
careful thought had been given to the subject in England aside from discus- 
sions of practical situations, numbers of which were demanding attention long 
before America began to build colleges. 

About the time Harvard College had reached its first centennial a really 
substantial discussion of the subject was entered upon in Europe and has con- 
tinued practically ever since. The discussion was in connection with the gen- 
eral inquiry into the social institutions of the times, and represents one line 
of inquiry pursued by the new school of political economy just then taking 
form. Turgot, of France ; Adam Smith, of England ; and William von Hum- 
boldt, of Germany, were the chief early contributors in their respective coun- 
tries and agree fairly well that education should not be endowed by the State, 
but rather that it should take its place in competition with all other interests. 
Turgot and Smith would modify the application of this laissez faire principle 
to meet certain conditions, while Humboldt would have it carried to its full 

103 



104 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

length. Doctor Chalmers, early in the nineteenth century, and John Stuart 
Mill, in 1833, however, proposed an important distinction between need for 
food and need for education, and urged that because of this difference the prin- 
ciple of free trade could not properly apply to education. 

Owing to the bad state of educational endowments in England at that time, 
the discussion shifted somewhat to a consideration of the rights of the State 
in the control of endowments. The critics declared that the failure of these 
endowments was due to the very principles involved in endowments for educa- 
tion, while the Mill economists argued that it was due merely to failure of the 
State to exercise a proper control over them. 

Other discussions in England of the possible value of endowments followed, 
involving the question of the right of posthumous disposition of property and 
emphasizing the rights of society (the State) as the real recipient of such gifts. 

EARLY EXPERIENCES IN AMERICA, 

In the early years America contributed little to this theoretical discussion, 
but as time went on and the idea of free public education began to take root, 
we gradually came face to face with it in connection with the question of 
school support. The State had taken a hand in initiating and in the support 
of our first attempt at higher education. The church had taken even a larger 
part than that shared by the State. In colonial Massachusetts, however, the 
State and the church were practically one, and therefore no opposition be- 
tween the two was likely to appear. The church and the State in America 
were soon to rest upon the theory of complete separation, however, and then 
the question of responsibility for the support of schools had to be worked out. 
The building of colleges went on, the church, the State, and private philan- 
thropy sharing the burden of cost, but with the responsibility for management 
resting mainly with the church until near the close of the colonial period. 

At the beginning of the national period the State began to contribute less and 
less to the old foundations and to debate the question of State colleges or uni- 
versities. By the middle of the new century the movement for State support 
and control of higher education took definite form. This did not rule out the 
church or private philanthropy, nor did it consciously interfere with them. 
It, nevertheless, set up competition between these two ideas of educational 
control. The result has been the development of a rather large literature on 
the subject, a decided stimulus to higher quality of work, and a clarification of 
the respective functions of the church and the State in higher education. 

In the earlier decades private philanthropy was so completely dominated by 
the church on the one hand, and was so small and scattered on the other, that its 
place in the field of higher education had raised no serious questions. The 
development of State universities, however, brought criticism, and in more 
recent years such college buildings as that initiated by Ezra Cornell, Johns 
Hopkins, John D. Rockefeller, Leland Stanford, and Andrew Carnegie, and such 
nonteaching foundations as those discussed in Chapter V have raised the question 
of the possible good or ill that may come from State endowment and from 
private philanthropy on such a large scale. 

It is in connection with these two points in our educational experience — the 
clash between State and church control ; and the upsetting of the old and small 
practices by wealthy philanthropists through the launching of great competing 
universities, or by the establishment of vast funds for endowment, pensions, and 
investigation — that America's contribution to a theory of endowments or of 
educational philanthropy has been made. Writers on social and political 
theory have given the subject but little thought, though many legislative bodies 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION'S. 105 

have dwelt at length upon specific issues which have been raised by the clash 
of these forces.^ 

In colonial America the aim of higher education was from the start dominated 
by the general religious aim of the people, and whether the State and the church 
were one or not, it was almost without exception the church leaders who initiated 
the move for building a college, and the colleges of this period were primarily 
designed for the training of ministers. 

The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, and New 
York contributed liberally to the maintenance of Harvard, William and Mary, 
Yale, and King's Colleges, respectively, but not so with Rhode Island, New 
Jersey, and New Hampshire in the case of Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, and 
Rutgers. We are able to say, therefore, that philanthropy, motivated in the 
main by religion, was primarily responsible for initiating college building in 
all cases; that it was largely responsible for the maintenance of five of the 
nine colonial colleges, and almost solely so for the other four. We may say, 
too, that while the idea of State support for colleges was practiced, it was not 
common in all the Colonies, and in no case (William and Mary a possible ex- 
ception) did a Colony assume full responsibility in the founding and develop- 
ment of a college. Hence denominational rather than State lines stand out in . 
the history of higher learning in colonial times, and unless we think of the 
impetus given to " this worldly " education by Franklin in the beginnings of 
the University of Pennsylvania there was no experiment that could be called 
a real departure from the traditional idea of a college. 

The sources from which philanthropy came during these years were nu- 
merous and varied, and each has in a way left its mark upon the college it 
benefited. No small amount of assistance came from England, largely through 
the influence of religious organizations. The influence of these gifts is sug- 
gested by the names of several of our colleges. Again, funds were sought in 
this country in Colonies quite remote from the college, and in many cases 
substantial aid was thus received. In the main, however, a college was either 
a local community or a denominational enterprise. If the former, as in case 
of Harvard, the burden rested mainly upon people close by. If the latter, as 
in the case of Brown, then churches of the denomination in question, wherever 
located, gave freely to its support. Many gifts from towns and from church 
congregations are also recorded. 

One is impressed at every point with the very large number of small gifts 
and with the way in which they were obtained. This applies to the entire 
history of American college building. The thousands of small gifts to our 
colleges seem to record the fact that from the outset these were to be schools 
of the people. 

During this period philanthropy initiated no unique educational experiments, 
yet it is quite as true to say that neither do we find evidence that gifts any- 
where influenced education in a wrong way. Gifts which were made to some 
specific feature of a college went in the main to the library, to professorships, 
to scholarships, and to buildings, all of which are essential to any college. 
Throughout this period, however, it has been shown that a relatively large 
percentage of gifts were made to the college unconditionally. 

We may say, then, that our beginnings were small ; that they were warmly 
supported by the mother country ; that the idea of State support was common, 
though by no means universal ; that there is evidence that no State, with the 
possible partial exception noted, intended to assume full responsibility for the 

1 Note, for instance, the legislative debates in New York over the founding of Cornell 
University. 



106 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

college ; that philanthropy clearly did assume that responsibility ; and that 
philanthropy did direct the policy of every college. We may say that philan- 
thropy was motivated by religion, and that the church in most cases dominated 
the movement ; that penury was common in all cases ; that the thousands of 
small gifts constituted an important asset in that they popularized the idea of 
the college and so helped to democratize society ; and that the gifts were in the 
main " to the college " without condition, or, if conditioned, they were almost 
invariably in accord with the essential lines of the school's growth. 

THE EAltLY NATIONAL PERIOD. 

During the early national period there was no special break in the main 
forces that had been building colleges in the Colonies. Conditions under which 
these forces had to work, however, were vastly different, whether we think 
of the problems of State making, of religion, of industries, of exploration and 
settlement, of growth of population, or of social philosophy. It was an age of 
expansion in all these matters and that in a broad and deep sense. 

In the matter of higher education it was also an age of expansion ; expan- 
sion in numbers of colleges, and, to some extent at least, in educational aim 
and types of studies offered. 

The Revolution had brought to an end the work of English philanthropy, 
and in increasing measure State support for established colleges was declining, 
leaving the task mainly to the churches of the country. The question of the 
State's function in higher education was soon raised, however, and before the 
close of the period a solution of the theoretical aspect of the problem had been 
reached and several State universities well established. 

Whatever of promise there was in this new movement, however, the great 
college pioneering of this period was done almost entirely by church-directed 
philanthropy. 

In this period, as in colonial days, the beginnings were small. Academies 
were often established with the hope that in time they would become colleges, 
the financial penury so common to the early colleges was characteristic through- 
out this period, and the subscription list was common everywhere. 

The motive behind the work of the church was not only to spread the Gospel 
but to provide schools for the training of ministers to fill the increasing num- 
ber of vacant pulpits reported throughout the period. Denominational lines 
were strong and undoubtedly led to an awkward distribution of colleges. 
The motives back of philanthropy in this period differ little therefore from 
those common to early Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Among the older col- 
leges, where the curriculum had begun to broaden and professional schools 
to take form, it was somewhat more common to find gifts made to some par- 
ticular end. Among the newer foundations we see a fair duplication of the 
early history of the older colleges, except that the new colleges grew some- 
what more rapidly. There is in most cases a more marked tendency to give 
toward permanent endowment, while among the conditional gifts those for 
professorships stand out strongly everywhere, and gifts to indigent students 
suffer a decline. 

The development of professional schools, of the manual labor college, and 
of institutions for the higher education of women mark a change in our 
educational philosophy and give expression to the changing social life of the 
times. Most of these experiments were initiated and fostered by philanthropy. 

Medical and law schools originated mainly as private schools conducted for 
profit, while schools of theology have been philanthropic enterprises from the 
start. The idea of women's colleges may have originated in the private pay 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 107 

schools for girls, or ladies' seminaries, common in the South, but the first well- 
financed college for women was the work of philanthropy, as most all subse- 
quent attempts have been, and description of the work of philanthropy in these 
schools would fit fairly well any college of the period. 

The fact that we find philanthropy rising to meet these many and varied 
educational and social ideas and ideals is not only an important fact in the 
social life of this country but is also an important characteristic of our educa- 
tional philanthropy. 

It is early in this period that the church education society comes into exist- 
ence to answer the call of the church for more and better trained ministers. 
The work of these societies was extensive, and no doubt resulted in filling 
many vacant pulpits and church missions. 

During this period, then, we may say that philanthropy did not slacken its 
interest in higher education, either because of the loss of English support or 
because of the rise of the State university. Philanthropy was, as before, directed 
in the main by the churches, and so through the whole period is prompted in 
the main by religious motives. The chur<* college followed the westward-mov- 
ing frontier, leaving many evidences of denominational competition for the new 
field. The failure of these church schools to meet the demands of the ministry 
is marked by the rise of church education societies whose aim was to provide 
scholarships and loans for students who would enter the ministry. Philan- 
thropy was active in the movement toward separate professional schools, in the 
development of manual labor colleges, and in the origin and development of 
women's colleges during this period. These new enterprises may with some 
propriety be called educational experiments, credit for which must go to 
churches and to philanthropy. 

As to method, there is practically nothing new to record. Permanent endow- 
ment grows somewhat more popular, and gifts for specified purposes tend to 
replace gifts to the general funds of the college. Nowhere, however, are the 
main aspects of the college neglected in favor of the new or unusual features. 

THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD. 

After 1865 we enter a period of vast expansion in college building as in 
every other line. Tlie idea of State higher education was worked out, and 
the question of State versus private and church schools was, for most people, 
satisfactorily solved. In the new States of the period it was more often 
the State than the church that established the pioneer institution for higher 
learning. With the exception of the manual labor college, practically all 
old ideas and practices in higher education were continued in force. Separate 
professional schools, women's colleges, church boards of education, and the 
typical small church college, all went forward, and each seems to have found 
a place for itself and still shows signs of healthful growth. 

The period is equally well characterized by the development of new en- 
terprises, back of which were at least a few really new things in educational 
philanthropy. One is the privately endowed university founded by a single 
large fortune. Another is the similarly endowed nonteaching educational 
foundation. 

The more detailed description of the philanthropy of this period brought 
out the fact that among the old colonial foundations, as well as among col- 
leges founded in the early national period. State aid was entirely lacking, 
while gifts were greatly increased both in numbers and size. It was noted 
that among the old colonial colleges the percentage of conditional gifts in- 
creased, while gifts to permanent funds showed a slight relative decline. 
111512°— 22 8 



108 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

In the colleges of the early national period almost the opposite tendency was 
shown — rapid growth of permanent funds and rapid increase in gifts to 
the general fund. In all the colleges professorships, scholarships, and library 
were well remembered, though gifts to libraries among the older colleges 
did not groM'^ so rapidly as was true in the younger schools. Everywhere it 
has been the fashion to give " to the college " outright or toward some main 
feature like buildings, equipment, library, professorships, or scholarships. 

As compared with other kinds of philanthropy the data show that higher 
education is one of the greatest recipients of charity we Irave to-day, that a 
Vast permanent endowment for higher education is being built up, and that 
philanthropy still bears the larger portion of the entire burden of cost. They 
bring out clearly the recent large movement of philanthropy toward the de- 
velopment of professional and technical schools and women's colleges, and 
also toward the larger support of church boards of education, the functions of 
which have been much enlarged in recent years. 

GREAT EDUCATIONAIi FOUNDATIONS. 

During the last portion of the present period the great private foundation 
appeared as a form of educational philanthropy which was practically new. 
Each of these foundations represented the ideas and aspirations of the one 
man whose fortune gave it existence. Dominated by no church or religious 
creed, and not even by the man who established it, but only by public opinion 
and the corporation laws of State and Nation, these foundations have en- 
tered the educational field and left an impress on practically every type of 
educational enterprise in the country, whether private. State, or church. 

The whole business and financial aspect of higher education has been studied 
and in a sense made over as a result of the operations of these gifts. The 
college curriculum has been more clearly differentiated from that of the 
secondary school, and standards of achievement in studies more clearly de- 
fined. Attention has been forcefully called to the problem of the distribution 
of colleges and to the principles which should guide us in locating new col- 
leges. Millions have been added to the general endowment of higher educa- 
tion. Medical, legal, and engineering education have been enormously profited 
by the clear and impartial studies that have been made of these schools and 
by financial assistance. The scientific study of education has not only been 
greatly stimulated, but contributions have been made through experiments 
and investigation. The bounds of knowledge have been pushed out in many 
directions by extensive and costly research. The principles involved in pen- 
sions for teachers have been thoroughly studied from every angle and broadly 
and with some measure of satisfaction established. 

Some doubts and fears and many sharp criticisms have been voiced lest 
these powerful corporations might seek to bias education and public opinion 
in favor of wrong social, political, or business ideals. This should be looked 
upon as a sign of health. Democratic society must not be expected to talte 
such gifts on faith. Even if there is a grain of danger from such corpora- 
tions, such danger should be mercilessly weeded out. In seeking for such 
dangers, however, we must not close our eyes to the obvious benefits which 
have and must continue to accrue to higher education from these sources. 
While society must insist upon its right to control such corporations, it must 
not be blind to the difficulties these foundations have had to face in blazing 
the new trails which they respectively hive chosen to mark out in the field 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 109 

of higher education. If the church, the State, the university, the professor, 
and the general public will continue to distinguish between intelligent criticism, 
on the one hand, and mere suspicion and gossip on the other, and remember 
that a wise administration of these gifts is largely dependent upon a cooperat- 
ing and appreciative beneficiary, then this, the greatest experiment in educa- 
tional philanthropy that has ever been tried, will continue to prove its wortli 
to society. 

DEVELOPMENTS BEARING UPON A THEORY OF ENDOWMENTS. 

From all this giving, what have we learned about the meaning of philan- 
thropy itself? What attitude shall the State, the church, and society in general 
take toward the great stream of gifts that is continuously pouring into the lap 
of higher education in the country? 

It is obvious that gifts to colleges are accepted by all as gi-eat blessings, 
and practically nowhere is there evidence that people fear the power which 
may some day be exercised through these gifts ; that is how firmly the college 
has established itself in the confidence of the people. So many thousands of 
people have contributed small or large gifts to build these schools, so closely 
have the schools been associated with the church, and so intimately have they 
woven themselves into the life of the people that they are everywhere fully 
trusted, and thus far no very bad effects of philanthropy have been felt.* Even 
the great privately endowed institutions like Cornell (accepted with much 
misgiving at the outset in many quarters) have now fully won the confidence 
of the people in general, of the church, and of the State. Thi.s is not surpris- 
ing in the light of the study of the conditions placed upon the thousands of 
gifts classified in the course of this study. 

If there is any misgiving in the minds of the people about any educational 
philanthropy to-day, it is perhaps in reference to one or another of the 
recently established nonteaching foundations. Here some uncertainty exists, 
as has been pointed out, though even here there is comparatively little that 
has not been accepted in most quarters with full confidence. 

If philanthropy has so nearly won the entire confidence of the people, it 
is because of the record philanthropy has made for itself. In defining the 
meaning of education, or in setting the limits to its participation in college 
building, donors have not departed too far from the accepted ideas, ideals, and 
practices of the time and of the people they sought to serve. IVIillions have 
been given for permanent endowment but the practice has been to endow 
" the college," a " professorship,"' a " scholarship," a given line of " research," 
a "library," and rarely or never to define with any severe detail just what 
is to be included under the term " college," " professorship," " scholarship," 
etc. The result is that the writer has found little evidence of harmful or 
even useless foundations, large or suiall. 

In the light of these facts it seems fair to assume that the great dominating 
motive in educational philanthropy has been desire to serve society; or, if we 
prefer, desire for a very high type of notoriety. So far as social progress is 
concerned, these are but two views of the same thing. 

* The ■writer did not find it feasible in this study to inquire into the number of gifts 
that have really laid a burden upon the college. In his autobiography. President White, 
of Cornell, expresses the opinion that our colleges have too frequently been the re- 
cipients of such gifts as an observatory, leaving the college the responsibility of pur- 
chasing instruments and caring for upkeep. 



110 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 

It has been pointed out that most that has been done toward developing a 
theory of educational philanthropy in this country has grown directly out of 
the practice rather than out of the studies of social and political theory. The 
country has faced and solved certain fundamental questions as they have arisen, 
as : The function of the State in higher education ; the function of the church in 
higher education ; the function of private philanthropy in teaching and non- 
teaching activities touching higher education. In settling these questions there 
has been endless debate and some bitterness of feeling, yet we have fully ac- 
cepted the idea of State-endowed higher education, and, according to our prac- 
tice, defined that education in the broadest possible way. This acceptance of 
State-endowed education did not rule out the church, whose activities in college 
building are as much appreciated and as well supported as ever. That there 
should have been a clash between the old idea of church-directed education and 
the new idea of State education was to be expected. The outcome of such a 
clash in this country, however, could not have been different from what it was. 
Similarly, there was a clash between the church and the privately endowed 
types of colleges, but each has a well-established place in present practice. 

In this country we have not confined ourselves to any single notion about 
who shall bear the burden of higher education. The State establishes a uni- 
versity but it also encourages the work of the church and of private philan- 
thropy.' The practice is therefore based upon a theory that is not fully in 
line with those of the early English, French, and German philosophers. It is 
far more liberal, being based rather upon the underlying conceptions of our 
social and political organization. 

Ownership of property in this country carries with it the right of bequest, 
and the " dead hand " rests, in some degree, upon most of the institutions of 
higher education. We fully respect the rights and 'the expressed wishes of the 
educational benefactors,* but this study shows that the benefactors have 
also respected the rights of society, not the society of to-day only but that of 
future generations as well. There has been a growing tendency for colleges 
and universities to study the terms of proffered benefactions with utmost 
care and to refuse to accept gifts to which undesirable conditions are attached. 
Similarly there has been a growing tendency on the part of benefactors either 
to accept terms suggested by the institution or to make the gift practically 
without conditions or with specific provision for future revision of the condi- 
tions named. This, it seems to the writer, marks an achievement which 
guarantees society against most if not all the evils associated with endowed 
education. 

After an examination of the hundreds of documents which have furnished 
the basis of this study, the writer is inclined to look upon educational philan- 
thropy as an essential and highly important characteristic of democracy. 

If a statement were made of the theory which has been evolved or the 
principles which have been arrived at in the almost three centuries of prac- 
tice, they would seem to be about as follows : 

(1) Permanent endowment of higher education by the State, by the church, 
or other association, or by individuals, is desirable. 

(2) All gifts to education, whether for present use or for permanent en- 
dowment, whether large or small, should be encouraged, because they open 

' Usually the property of such schools is made entirely, or at least in part, free from 
taxation by State laws. 

* As note the Girard College case. 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. Ill 

up large possibilities in the way of educational investigation and experiment 
and because the donor is brought into an intimate relationship with an enter- 
prise that is fundamental to the national life. 

(3) The wishes of a donor as expressed in the conditions of his gift shall 
be respected and fully protected by the State. 

(4) It is desirable that the conditions controlling a gift shall be stated in 
general terms only, and that the methods of carrying out the purposes of the 
donor be left largely to the recipient of the gift. 

(5) Finally, it is desirable that even the purpose of a gift should be made 
alterable after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, and, if it be desirable, 
that the gift be terminated. 



INDEX. 



American Education Society, financial sta- 
tistics, 74-75. 
Amherst College, donations and grants, 42 ; 
Income, 63 ; students receiving aid from 
American Educational Society, 49. 
Andover Theological Seminary, gifts to per- 
manent funds, 43 ; growth, 64. 
Brown University, charter analyzed, 12-13. 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 

of Teaching, 85-86, 96-101. 
Carnegie Institution, 83-84, 91-93. 
Cleveland Foundation, 87-89. 
College education, colonial period, cost, 

20-21. 
College of William and Mary, charter ana- 
lyzed, 11-12. 
College professors, colonial period, salaries, 

21-22. 
Colleges, finances of, colonial, 16-19. 
Colleges and universities, charters analyzed, 
10-14 ; donations and grants, early na- 
tional period, 37-43, 45-47 ; donations 
and grants, late national period, 53-54 ; 
early national period, establishment and 
sources of support, 35-37 ; growth in 
late national period, 53-54. 
Colonial period, 10-32. 
Columbia University, charter analyzed, 11- 

12 ; donations and grants, 26, 42. 
Cornell University, donations and grants, 

71 ; income, 73. 
Council of Church Boards of Education, 

work, 78. 
Dartmouth College, charter analyzed, 

13-14. 
Early conception of philanthropy, 1. 
Early national period, 33-52, 106-107. 
Education societies, philanthropy, 47-51. 
Educational donations and grants, 17-20, 

23-32, 56-62. 
Educational foundations, 81-102, 108-109; 
place in Adam Smith's free-trade econ- 
omy, 3-4 ; place in Turgat's social 
theory, 1-3. 
Endowments, 103-104, 109-111. 
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United 

States of America, 76. 
General Education Board, 84-85, 93-96. 
Harvard University, donations and grants, 
. 23, 39 ; charter analyzed, 11-12. 
Hobhouse, Sir Arthur, on " dead haud " in 
education, 7-8. 

112 



John F. Slater Fund, 82-83, 91. 
Johns Hopkins University, donations and 
grants, 71 ; ideas and purposes of 
founder, 68. 
Late national period, 53-80, 107-108. 
Leland Stanford Junior University, dona- 
tions and grants, 71-72 ; object of 
founder, 69. 
Lowe, return to free-trade principles, 7. 
Manual-labor colleges, 45-47, 65-67. 
Methodist Episcopal Church Board, finan- 
cial statistics, 76. 
Mill, John Stuart, opposition to theories of 

Turgot and Smith, 5-7. 
Mount Holyoke College, endowment and in- 
come, 64-65. 
Oberlin College, funds, 66-67. 
Feabody Educatior Fund, 82, 89-91. 
Phelps-Stokes Fund, 86-87. 
Political influence. Colonial period, 15—16. 
Presbyterian Education Board, financial 

statistics, 75. 
Princeton University, charter analyzed, 11— 

12 ; donations and grants, 25. 
Religious and denominational influences. 

Colonial period, 14-14. 
Religious education societies, philanthropy, 

73-78. 
Rockefeller Foundation, 87. 
Russell Sage Foundation, 86, 101. 
Rutgers College, charter analyzed, 13-14. 
Smith, Adam, place of educational foun- 
dations in free-trade economy of, 3-4. 
Theological education, early national 

period, 43-44. 
Turgot's social theory, place of educational 

foundations, 1—3. 
University of Chicago, Income, 72 ; pro- 
vision of charter, 69—70. 
University of Pennsylvania, charter ana- 
lyzed, 11-12. 
Vassar College, donations and grants, 70- 

71 ; educational aims, 67-68, 69. 
Von Humboldt's theory, 4—5. 
Women, education, early national period, 

44-45. 
Women's colleges, late national period, 64— 

65. 
Yale University, charter analyzed, 11-12 ; 
donations and grants, 24 ; gifts, 39. 



o 



\ 



VITA 

Jesse Brundage Sears: Born, Hamilton, Mb., September 
25, 1876. 

Academic Training : Elementary education at the Wooder- 
son school, Davies Co., Mo. ; Graduated from Kidder Institute 
(academy), Kidder, Mo., June 1902; Bachelor of Arts degree 
at Leland Stanford Junior University, June 1909 ; Part-time 
student at University of Wisconsin, 1909-1910 ; Student, Chicago 
University, summer quarter, 1910 ; Student, Teachers College, 
Columbia University, 1910-1911 and summer term, 1911 ; Student 
assistant, Stanford University, 1907-1909 ; Assistant in Educa- 
tion, Columbia University, 1911 ; Research scholar. Teachers 
College, 1910-1911. 

Professional Experience : Rural school, Davies Co., Mo., 
1897-1900; Grade teacher, Kidder public schools, 1902-1903; 
Supervising principal, Kingston, Mo., public schools, 1903-1905 ; 
Principal, Hamilton, Mo., high school, 1905-1906 ; Instructor, 
University of Wisconsin, 1909-1910 ; Instructor, Stanford Uni- 
versity, 1911-1912 ; Assistant Professor, Stanford University, 
1912-1917 ; Associate Professor, Stanford University, 1917 — 

Author : ' ' Classroom Organization and Control, ' ' Boston, 
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1918; Joint author, "The Boise Survey," 
Yonkers, N. Y., The World Book Co, 1920; Joint author, 
"School Organization and Administration," Yonkers, N. Y., 
The World Book Co., 1916. 



/ 



^ 



,^ 



5 89 - 



\ 



'A\v ,.*^'*^fe\ -^^^^ **'*^^'^'°- \/ .•;^'- %,^ 



l\ 




























v--^'y %*^-^/ \'^!^\#^ \. 







.^^■^^f- 
V ^ 




"^< 
<^^. 










^ 









